{"id":140377,"date":"2022-05-05T06:21:21","date_gmt":"2022-05-05T13:21:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/?p=140377"},"modified":"2022-05-05T06:21:21","modified_gmt":"2022-05-05T13:21:21","slug":"white-house-press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/?p=140377","title":{"rendered":"White House Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Washington, DC&#8230;Hi, everyone.  All right.  Just two items to highlight for all of you at the top.  Two short items.  Today, we announced an upcoming Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health.  This will bring attention to the burden of hunger and diet-related disease, which were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic.  At the conference, we will release a new national strategy to eliminate hunger and reduce diet-related illnesses such as heart disease and eliminate disparities.  This strategy will catalyze the public and private sectors around a coordinated strategy to accelerate progress and drive transformative change in the United States.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/ZpC1HinT468\" title=\"YouTube video player\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Also, I know the President spoke about this this morning, but I just wanted to lightly touch on the fact that during the President\u2019s first year in office, the deficit fell by over $350 billion.  Again, fell by over $350 billion.  And that announcement this morning in his remarks were based on the Treasury Department\u2019s revised estimates of the government\u2019s financing needs from \u2014 for this fiscal year.<\/p>\n<p>The Treasury Department also announced, and the President touched on it this morning, that it will pay down the national debt this quarter for the first time since 2016. <\/p>\n<p>So, I just wanted to note those items.  And then, Aamer, why don\u2019t you kick us off.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks.  I had just a couple on \u2014 related to the Alito draft opinion that leaked.  First, does the President believe that Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch misled or lied to senators about their views on Roe?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, again, given that \u2014 while the \u2014 while the Supreme Court has validated the document, they have made clear that this is not a final opinion.  So the President \u2014 I don\u2019t have anything to speak to in terms of his views on where members may or may not be \u2014 or Supreme Court justices, I should say, may or may not be on a final opinion.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And, secondly, President Biden again this morning warned that the draft abortion opinion could go beyond the issue and jeopardize other basic rights.  And I think this morning he specifically talked about LGBTQ issues \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 if I remember correctly.  Does he want the Court \u2014 does he think that this opinion needs to be, at minimum, narrowed?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, again, the President, as much as he spoke yesterday \u2014 both in a written statement and also to all of you who are traveling \u2014 about his strong views about this leaked document, he\u2019s not going to prejudge or have a comment on an opinion that has not yet been issued.<\/p>\n<p>What he was speaking to \u2014 and I \u2014 and he touched on it again this morning \u2014 was his long history working on a range of these issues.  As you all know from his biography, he led the fight against the nomination of Robert Bork.  And what struck him in reading the leaked document was how some of the language reminded him of Robert Bork\u2019s view of the narrow definition of how one should analyze or review what the Constitution allows for.<\/p>\n<p>And if you remember during that \u2014 those hearings \u2014 I know many of you, including myself, were quite young during the time, but we all read history \u2014 part of the big debate there, or the big discussion, was the Griswold vs. Connecticut case, which was related to privacy and whether married couples should be able to have the privacy to purchase contraception. <\/p>\n<p>And so I think what you\u2019re hearing play out is the President\u2019s own reaction to what he saw in these documents and his view that \u2014 the protection of privacy and the protection of the ability of women to make decisions about their healthcare with their doctors, about people to be able to choose who they marry.  And to him, reading that, it reminded him of how important those protections are.  And that\u2019s what he \u2014 why you continue to hear him talk about it.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And, finally, if I could just ask briefly on Chairman Powell. <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    He just said that the Fed is limited in how it can deal with supply shocks that have been leading to higher inflation.<\/p>\n<p>So what more can the White House and Congress do, given that challenge?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would \u2014 I would note also, as you and others have reported, that there were \u2014 there were announcements made about decisions \u2014 actions the Federal Reserve intends to take, which are consistent with what they have said they would do to date.  And the President has said in the past that it\u2019s appropriate, and he supports their decision to recalibrate.  So that remains his view today.<\/p>\n<p>In terms of what more we can do to address inflation \u2014 I mean, I would also note that during his comments, Chair Powell also noted the strength of the economy.  He also noted that there\u2019s a path for a soft landing without pushing the economy into recession.  He had a lot to say, of course, during this press conference.  So I just wanted to note a couple of the things.<\/p>\n<p>But what more we can do beyond, of course, respecting the independence of the Federal Reserve and the decisions they make, including those announced today, is to continue to take steps to address costs for the American people.  Chair Powell also said, or echoed \u2014 I think it was in response to a question \u2014 the point that energy prices, and specifically the invasion by President Putin, was having an impact on inflation.<\/p>\n<p>And so one of the President\u2019s primary focuses right now, as you all know, is taking any step we can to bring down costs, whether that is the historic release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, leading the world in their own release; continuing to talk to large global providers of oil and what they can do to help the global market, even the announcements we\u2019ve made over the last couple of weeks about E15; and taking any step we can to reduce those costs; and also continuing to have conversations with leaders on Capitol Hill and members about steps we can take to reduce costs for the American people, whether it\u2019s childcare, healthcare, eldercare, prescription drugs.  All of these have an impact on people\u2019s day-to-day lives.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Jen, back to abortion, if I can: Yesterday, you said the leak raises eyebrows, including for many here in the White House.  But does the White House condemn \u2014 explicitly condemn this leak and \u2014 or has seeing this draft been seen as welcome by some here?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I don\u2019t think we have a particular view on that other than to say that we certainly note the unprecedented nature of it. <\/p>\n<p>What we are mindful of \u2014 and I spoke with the President about exactly this question yesterday, and obviously it\u2019s up to the Department of Justice to determine what, if any, action they will take.  And I know, obviously, there have been calls for that from some Republicans but also members of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p>But our focus is on not losing sight from what the content is in the draft and what is at risk here.  And while we have heard a number raised concerns about the leak, our focus is on highlighting what the content in there would risk \u2014 put at risk for women across the country.<\/p>\n<p>So, again, we\u2019ll leave it to the Department of Justice to make a decision about that.  I would note that many Republicans have wanted to talk about that and not about whether they support the protection of a woman\u2019s right to choose, a woman\u2019s right to make decisions with her doctor about her healthcare. Maybe not a surprise, given we\u2019re \u2014 by more than a two-to-one margin, Americans want the Supreme Court to support abortion rights.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And as for the content of the draft \u2014 the document, the draft \u2014 it is, of course, a draft \u2014 but if the Supreme Court does move to strike down Roe, should Americans be prepared to just accept that decision as legitimate?  And would President Biden accept that decision as legitimate?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I can\u2019t speak for what actions could be possible on the legal front; I would point you to the Department of Justice on that. <\/p>\n<p>But what I can tell you will happen is \u2014 and this is what we are preparing for the possibility of \u2014 that if Roe were to fall, abortion would probably be illegal in about half the states in the country, up to 26 states, particularly in the South, the Midwest, and West, who have all spoken out \u2014 many leaders \u2014 about how they\u2019re poised to restrict or ban access.  Some have even taken action, even as recently as yesterday, as crazy as that sounds.<\/p>\n<p>And depending on the Court\u2019s position \u2014 decision \u2014 13 states even have trigger laws.  Trigger laws mean they would basically immediately put in place bans.  And as a result of all of this, tens of millions of women may lack access to reproductive healthcare services as soon as this summer, if that were a decision to be made.<\/p>\n<p>I\u2019d also note \u2014 and as we\u2019re thinking about and working with not just the Gender Policy Council but also the Department of Health and Human Services, also members on the Hill, also the Counsel\u2019s Office, what we\u2019re really focused on is the impact this would have.  It would dramatically reduce access to reproductive care, particularly for women with low incomes, women of color, women in rural communities. <\/p>\n<p>We know that 75 percent of those seeking abortions are living at or below 200 percent of the poverty level, and the majority of patients seeking abortions identify as Black, Hispanic, and AAPI. <\/p>\n<p>So if you look at the 26 states, let\u2019s take for example \u2014 or the 13 to 26, depending \u2014 and you look at a map, that means that women \u2014 the majority of whom are below that poverty level and are Black, Hispanic, or AAPI \u2014 are going to be forced to figure out how to travel, how to take time off of work, how to get childcare.  It is a prohibitive cost.  It will not be safe. <\/p>\n<p>And that is what we are focused on working to address as we\u2019re making policy decisions and considerations.<\/p>\n<p>Q    So it \u2014 it sounds like you\u2019re saying, then, that\u2019s a yes \u2014 he would consider this a legitimate decision.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, there is not even a decision yet.  We don\u2019t know the validity of the \u2014 we know that this is a leaked document; it is not the final opinion.  So, I just can\u2019t speak to that hypothetically at this point in time.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Jen, just following up on that.  In the President\u2019s statement yesterday, he said he had asked the Gender Policy Council \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 and the White House Counsel\u2019s Office to look at options.  What can the administration do if that\u2019s what the decision ends up being in June?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, why \u2014 the reason I noted all of what I just did, Jeff, is because we\u2019re really looking at who this would deeply, directly impact the most. <\/p>\n<p>Of course, there is \u2014 the majority \u2014 overwhelming majority of women in this country do not want this to be overturned.  But the impact directly will be predominantly on women of color, will be on the 75 percent of those seeking abortions who are living at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.<\/p>\n<p>So, while I can\u2019t at this point give you a preview of what we would do in response to a hypothetical final opinion, what I can tell you is that we\u2019ve already seen states restrict \u2014 right? \u2014 in \u2014 across the country. <\/p>\n<p>And if you look at Texas, for example, they \u2014 obviously, they put their restrictions in place.  And Planned Parenthood and other organizations have put out statistics suggesting that clinics in neighboring states have seen increases of 600, 700, 800 percent of people traveling to their clinics. <\/p>\n<p>So, you will see that.  You will see people try to travel to states.  And what we\u2019ve done to date \u2014 and to try to help, to date, where we have seen restrictions \u2014 which gives you kind of a tiny bit of a roadmap, even though it obviously would be much more expanded beyond this \u2014 is created, for example, the Dire Need Grant awards, which provide funding to expand access to emergency contraception, family planning services. <\/p>\n<p>We just announced $6.6 million in awards made to eight grantees across the country and around the country. <\/p>\n<p>We also have \u2014 I would note, the Department of Justice and the Attorney General\u2019s statements in response to Texas SB 8, which again is what \u2014 is an example of what we\u2019ve seen in terms of the impact, to date \u2014 and their commitment to continuing to defend the law to protect the safety of patients seeking access to reproductive health services.<\/p>\n<p>HHS has also announced a three-pronged, department-wide response to protect patients and providers. <\/p>\n<p>So, again, what we\u2019re looking at is how to ensure we\u2019re expanding access, how to ensure we are taking a look at the enormous impact on a specific portion of the population.  And this is an across-government effort beyond just the Gender Policy Council.<\/p>\n<p>Q    (Inaudible) breaking news on that?<\/p>\n<p>Q    And \u2014<\/p>\n<p>Q    Sorry.  Go ahead, Jeff.  Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    I was just going to ask: Would that manifest itself in executive orders?  Or what specifically might the framework for that kind of action be?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  We\u2019re not there yet.  Obviously, what we\u2019ve done to date, Jeff, is taken steps through obviously the Department of Justice, which they can speak to; through grant programs and funding programs that we\u2019ve been able to put in place, to date, to address even restrictions that are in states, to date, which is not the same as the Supreme Court overturning.  And we will build on that from here. <\/p>\n<p>What was the breaking news?  Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Jen, we just learned that the Secretary of State Antony Blinken has tested positive for COVID via PCR test.  If you could walk us through what more you know about that \u2014 we\u2019ve received a statement from the State Department \u2014 but most notably, the most recent time he was face to face with the President and the circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  The Pres- \u2014 he has not seen the President in several days, and he is not considered a close contact. <\/p>\n<p>I would remind you all \u2014 that\u2019s a strange phrase, I know \u2014 but \u201cclose contact,\u201d as defined by the CDC, is being within 10 feet for 15 \u2014 10 feet for 15 minutes. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Six feet.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  That is not \u2014 six feet, I\u2019m sorry.  Six feet for 15 minutes.  He has not been and has not seen him in several<\/p>\n<p>days. <\/p>\n<p>Q    So, for clarity \u2014 because we\u2019re learning about a lot of cases right now.  It\u2019s not the first time Washington has seen \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 these ricochets; it\u2019s been going on for several weeks.  Has the President been identified as a close contact to anybody who has just tested positive for COVID?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  If he had, we would have announced that publicly to all of you.  And we have clearly made decisions when it has been Cabinet members or even when it\u2019s been people who play a public role with all of you.  We have made announcements out of an abundance of transparency.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And just \u2014 so, for transparency purposes, we know he has tested negative recently.   When was the most recent negative test that \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  He tested negative yesterday.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Yesterday.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:   The President, that is.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And then, finally, in terms of preventive medications right now, can you say declaratively: Is the President taking any pre-exposure preventive medications to deal with COVID? <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  He is not.  The preventative medication that has been approved by the FDA is Evusheld, which is given to people who are immunocompromised, and he is not immunocompromised.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Also not taking Bebtelovimab or something?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m not aware of any medication he is taking.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Jen \u2014<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you, Jen.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you so much.  Several days since Blinken last saw the President.  Do you know what day exactly that was?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m sure we can get you the exact day.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And to follow on Jeff\u2019s questions when it comes to the options that the President has said he\u2019s directed his team to prepare, should we not expect to see those options until this ruling comes down from the Supreme Court?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I \u2014 that\u2019s correct.  That\u2019s what I would expect. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Do you not think it would be too late to unveil the options then, given it seems imminent that this is the direction that the Supreme Court is headed in?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, again, we don\u2019t have a final conclusion.  The Supreme Court themselves made clear this is not the final opinion.  So, we will \u2014 we will be \u2014 we are already working a great deal behind the scenes, and we will have more to say if and when there is a final \u2014 there will be at some point, but when there\u2019s a final opinion. <\/p>\n<p>Q    And a question about something Senator Manchin said today.  He said he believes inflation will be the number-one driving factor in the midterms, not abortion, not this potential ruling from the Supreme Court.  Does the White House see it that way?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I mean, all we can judge it based on is what we\u2019ve seen in public polls.  That remains the data, to date.  Right?  But, obviously, the news of yesterday just came out yesterday.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And today, the President was sharply critical of the MAGA crowd and the MAGA agenda.  Is that what we should expect to be his message going into the midterms?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I think, for those of you who\u2019ve been covering him for some time, you\u2019ve heard him say \u2014 and maybe back more to the campaign trail, less as President \u2014 \u201cDon\u2019t compare me to the Almighty.  Compare me to the alternative.\u201d  And I would expect you will hear him with that mantra much more out there over the next coming months. <\/p>\n<p>You know, he is so- \u2014 he has been struck, clearly, because he has talked about this \u2014 as you mentioned, Kaitlan \u2014 this morning and he also has made comments over the last several days about the direction of some in the Republican Party \u2014 the MAGA direction of some in the Republican Party.  And he\u2019s been struck by the hold his predecessor seems to have on far too many members \u2014 not all, but far too many members of the party. <\/p>\n<p>And what we\u2019re seeing \u2014 the latest antics are \u2014 made clear that they are at war with Mickey Mouse, they\u2019re against allowing women to make choices about their own healthcare, against lowering the cost of prescription drugs.  And if that remains their platform, the President\u2019s view is: That is out of whack with the mainstream of the country. <\/p>\n<p>Now, at the same time, he\u2019s always believed that \u2014 in working with Republicans in good faith and finding ways to do that.  And he will continue to do that, but he is going to also call out \u2014 and you will see him call out more \u2014 places where he feels there are extreme va- \u2014 policies and extreme comments and extreme positions that are, unfortunately, overtaking far too much of the party.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And you just said \u201chis predecessor.\u201d  Today, he seemed to purposefully say \u201cmy predecessor.\u201d  He did not say \u201cTrump\u201d; he said \u201cMAGA\u201d instead of \u201cTrump.\u201d  Is that deliberate?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, as far as I know, he\u2019s not on the ballot.  A number of his \u2014 of Republicans who have seemed to be under the whim of his predecessor are, so that\u2019s who he\u2019s going to focus his efforts on.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Quick question about interest rates with the Fed\u2019s action today.  As interest rates go up, the cost of carrying the national debt also increases and interest payments go up. <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Are there any concern about possible complications with the President keeping his deficit reduction pledge if the cost of paying interest on the national debt is going to go up as interest rates go up?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I have not heard that concern expressed by our economic team.  You know, we are proud of the announcement made this morning; hence, the President spoke to it.  And taking additional steps to reduce the deficit remain his commitment. <\/p>\n<p>So I have not \u2014 I have not heard that concern from them.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Another question.  Axios is reporting that in his meeting with Marc and Debra Tice earlier this week, the President pledged to directly engage with Syria to se- \u2014 try to secure Austin\u2019s release.  Is that true?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would note that our hostage negotiator, our \u2014 Roger Carstens \u2014 that is the type of work that he does and will continue to do. <\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks.  Jen, why did you guys say anything about the leaked draft memo at the Supreme Court?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  How do you mean?<\/p>\n<p>Q    Well, in the past, you have declined to comment on leaked materials.  So, why now?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, Peter, I think, as you would note and was reported, the Supreme Court confirmed this \u2014 this document was accurate, even it was \u2014 if it is not the final opinion.<\/p>\n<p>Q    The President had a statement out before they confirmed that it was real.  So, what changed?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  And in that statement he made clear we don\u2019t know if this is accurate.  We don\u2019t know if this document is accurate or the leak is accurate.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And to follow up on a question earlier, do you guys think \u2014 does the President think the leaker should be punished?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Again, that\u2019s up for the Department of Justice and others to determine.  What our focus is on is not getting our \u2014 distracted \u2014 or our eye off the ball of what is most important to people across the country here, which is not the leak and the story of the leak.  It is the fact that women\u2019s healthcare is at risk for millions of people across this country.<\/p>\n<p>Q    The President said today: \u201cWhat happens if you have states change the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can\u2019t be in classrooms with other children?\u201d  What is he talking about?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Peter, we\u2019ve seen extreme laws that target LGBTQ families, their kids across the country.  And I think what he\u2019s saying is: We don\u2019t know what they\u2019re capable of, given what they\u2019ve already done to date.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Which state is trying to segregate LGBTQ children in the classroom?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I think we\u2019ve seen laws that are incredibly discriminatory.  That\u2019s what the President is referring to and the fact that he doesn\u2019t know what additional steps could be taken by extreme wings of the party that would rather divide rather than work on issues that the American people actually are focused on and actually are impacting them. <\/p>\n<p>Q    So, another one about abortion.  Why is the President talking about the judgment to choose to abort a child?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, the President\u2019s view on a woman\u2019s right to make choices about her own healthcare is well known, well documented, well stated.<\/p>\n<p>Q    He said \u201cabort a child.\u201d  Is that \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I understand, Peter.  But what I\u2019m telling you is what his position is.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And how can you guys say this is not a political issue when the President\u2019s statement about this talked about getting pro-choice officials elected?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Did I say it\u2019s not a political issue?<\/p>\n<p>Q    Yes.  You actually said, \u201cSome call it a political issue.  It is not\u201d \u2014 aboard Air Force One.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, because the vast majority of the public believes that this should not \u2014 that this should not be overturned, meaning I meant to say it\u2019s not a partisan issue, and I don\u2019t think it is.  There are many Republican and independent women, men across the country who do not believe the Supreme Court should overturn a woman\u2019s right to make choices about her own healthcare.<\/p>\n<p>In fact, only 30 percent in recent polls thought they should.  So, that\u2019s what I\u2019m referring to.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Jen, thanks.  A couple on the Roe opinion.  Earlier this year, President Biden made a speech on voting rights.  He said they were under attack, it was important to do that.  Will he make an address to the nation on abortion access?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I don\u2019t have anything to predict about an address to the country.  I can tell you that you\u2019ve heard him speak about his views today and yesterday, and it\u2019s only been two days since we saw the leaked documents.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And on the comments today and yesterday: When he was asked about abortion, the President really focused on privacy, LGBT children, married couples.  Why isn\u2019t he speaking more directly about how this impacts women, poor women, women of color?  How comfortable is he talking about this?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  He has.  He did yesterday, both in his written statement and when he addressed this publicly.  His point, as he\u2019s continued to talk about this over two days, is also that this brings into question our fundamental rights and the fundamental rights of people across this country on who they marry, what choices they make about their own healthcare.  And that goes to his own experience fighting against, again, Robert Bork in his nomination many years ago.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And he has not used the word \u201cabortion\u201d \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  It was in his statement yesterday.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 until yesterday.  That\u2019s my question.  He hadn\u2019t used the word \u201cabortion\u201d until yesterday.  Why did he want to use it yesterday, and what should we take from that?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  When he talks about the \u2014 his protect- \u2014 his commitment to protecting a woman\u2019s right to choose, women\u2019s healthcare, he\u2019s referring to protecting a woman\u2019s right to have an abortion.  I think most people know that.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Jen, yesterday, the President was giving a speech, and, when he was talking about the CHIPS bill, he said that the Chinese Communist Party was lobbying against the \u2014 \u201clobbying folks to oppose this bill.\u201d  I\u2019m wondering what you guys saw to sort of add that \u2014 it was a new line in his speech \u2014 what you saw and what are some of the examples of them sort of interfering with our domestic legislative process.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I think what he\u2019s referring to is the fact that it\u2019s been well reported \u2014 maybe even by Bloomberg \u2014 I don\u2019t know; I\u2019d have to check \u2014 that the Chinese Communist Party is opposed to this legislation.  And that\u2019s what he\u2019s referring to.<\/p>\n<p>And, you know, he believes, as you know, that it\u2019s absolutely critical for our national security for Congress to get this Bipartisan Innovation Act to his desk, in large part because it will help protect critical supply chains like semiconductors.  It goes to \u2014 it\u2019s going to strengthen our supply chains against global shocks.  It\u2019s going to help out-compete the rest of the world, including China, for decades to come.  So, he was referring to their opposition.<\/p>\n<p>Q    But not a specific new sort of \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Right.  Their opposition to it.  Exactly.<\/p>\n<p>Q    There was an Axios report that had, kind of, two parts that I wanted to ask you about.  First, that the trip to Israel is going to be added to the European trip in June, but also more substantively that they\u2019re consid- \u2014 or you\u2019re considering a regional leader summit as part of that visit.  Can you confirm either of those?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  We\u2019re not quite there yet.  What I will say is that he \u2014 you know about the trip at the end of June because there are some predetermined, kind of, international fora that he will be a part of. <\/p>\n<p>And when he spoke with Prime Minister Bennett just a couple of weeks ago, he invited him to Israel.  The President accepted and said he\u2019s looking forward to coming, but we haven\u2019t quite locked in the date yet.  And so, I don\u2019t have any further detail at this point.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And then last summit qu- \u2014 last question on summits as well.  The Summit of the Americas is coming up.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Mexico and the President had a conversation a few days ago.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    The leader of Mexico has been pushing for countries \u2014 authoritarian governments \u2014 Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua \u2014 to participate in that summit.  And I\u2019m wondering if you guys have come to a determination about how you\u2019re going to handle their participation in the summit yet.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m happy to check.  I\u2019m not sure a final determination has been made \u2014 or I will check if one has and we can get you that information.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks, Jen.  Building on some of the questions Catherine was asking.  Just in regards to keeping the focus on women\u2019s rights, health rights, protecting privacy, how much of the President\u2019s efforts moving forward will be on these issues?  Does it \u2014 does it shoot to the top of the agenda?  So far, it\u2019s largely been in response to the leak.  Does it \u2014 how much will be proactively taken now?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would dispute that, only \u2014 and only because we have \u2014 just haven\u2019t talked about this a lot publicly.  But I would note that \u2014 remember that when these states have taken actions, we\u2019ve also made clear that there was work that the Gender Policy Council, that the White House Counsel\u2019s Office, the Department of Health and Human Services, obviously the Department of Justice would be taking and would be underway.<\/p>\n<p>And we have been in touch with leadership about this issue and the threat to Roe in both chambers, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chair Durbin; the House Women\u2019s Caucus \u2014 yes, in the last 36 hours, but also many times in advance about that.  And certainly, the leaked document is going to intensify after our efforts \u2014 after the news that millions of Americans\u2019 healthcare is on the cusp of being thrown into turmoil.  There\u2019s no question about that.<\/p>\n<p>But there\u2019s been work by the Gender Policy Council that\u2019s been ongoing for months.  There\u2019s been work and engagement with leaders on the Hill about what can be done for months.  And certainly, it\u2019s going to be redoubled at this point, given the leaked document.<\/p>\n<p>Q    On that point of intensifying efforts, what will that look like?  Are we talking Oval Office meetings?  Will he travel on this issue?  Those kinds of things?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I don\u2019t have anything to predict in terms of his schedule at this point.  But what I can tell you is that, as you\u2019ve seen, this is an issue he has proactively talked about in the last two days, both of the two days since the document leaked.<\/p>\n<p>The Vice President went and gave a rousing speech at EMILY\u2019s List last night.  And \u2014 but most \u2014 a lot of the most important work is going to happen behind the scenes, and that is going to be the work that is done across the government to determine and prepare for what steps can be taken should this final decision be made.<\/p>\n<p>Q    On Title 42, Mexico\u2019s Foreign Minister mentioned, I think in the last day or two, that the Biden administration is expected to present a formal set of ideas to the government on how to contain the expected rise in migration.  I assume \u2014 or can you share whether the White House is working with the DHS on those set of ideas?  And is there anything you can share on what those are?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would say first that, as you know, Secretary Mayorkas testified and laid out six very specific pillars of effort and work that we would be pursuing.  And some of that, of course, is directly with countries in terms of addressing root causes, addressing actions or attempts by smugglers to take advantage of this moment, and working with the Mexican government is part of that.  And the President\u2019s conversation and call was put together in order to discuss preparations for the lifting of Title 42.<\/p>\n<p>As part of that, the tasking was for there to be follow-up for members of our national security team and Mexico.  That\u2019s continuing, but I don\u2019t have any specifics to read out for you. That was just always intended to be the follow-up step.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks, Jen.  I wanted to pivot to Ukraine.  Secretary Austin recently said \u2014 and I want to get the quote right \u2014 \u201cWe believe that we can win, they can win if they have the right equipment, the right support.\u201d  How does the administration actually define \u201cwinning\u201d in Ukraine?  And does it mean that every last Russian troop is out?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, I would say the way that President Putin defined \u2014 defined \u201cwinning\u201d a war that he started from the beginning was taking over Ukraine, enveloping Ukraine into Russia, taking away their territorial integrity and their sovereignty.  Clearly, that has not been successful.<\/p>\n<p>You know, he expected and was planning to be marching through the streets of Kyiv, victorious, next Monday.  Clearly, that is not what is going to happen.<\/p>\n<p>He wanted this to be a moment to divide NATO, to divide the West.  Clearly, that is not what is happening. <\/p>\n<p>We\u2019ve said we want Ukraine to win.  We\u2019re going to do everything we can to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity and to strengthen the Ukrainians\u2019 hands on the battlefield and at the negotiating table.  That\u2019s our role. <\/p>\n<p>And they are defending their homeland courageously and bravely from the continued attacks from the Russians.  But they\u2019re going to define at the negotiating table, as we\u2019re strengthening their hand, what they consider success on the battlefield and at the negotiating table.  And we\u2019re here to support their efforts.<\/p>\n<p>Q    I just want to follow up to make sure I\u2019m clear.  So, if Ukraine is fine with Russia taking over the eastern part of the country, for example, is that what the U.S. would consider a \u201cwin\u201d?  Is that what \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  The Ukrainians are going to define what a successful outcome looks like for them. <\/p>\n<p>But what I think is important to note and not lose sight of is how the Russians have defined this.  And they have already lost their \u2014 by their definition.  They have not taken over Ukraine.  President Putin is not going to be marching through \u2014 down the streets of Kyiv.  They will not own the territorial integrity and sovereignty of this country.  They have not divided NATO. <\/p>\n<p>So now, at this point: Yes, what we\u2019re trying to do is to \u2014 is strengthen their hand at the negotiating table, both by supplying weapons on the battlefield, both \u2014 and supporting them with whatever needs they have. <\/p>\n<p>But it is for them to define through those negotiations.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    I have two questions, abortion related.  The President promised during the campaign to overturn the restrictions that the Trump administration put on the ACA\u2019s requirement that workplace insurance plans cover contraception. <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah. <\/p>\n<p>Q    And the agencies said in August that they would initiate the rulemaking within six months, and that hasn\u2019t happened.  Why hasn\u2019t it happened?  Is it still going to happen?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I \u2014 it is still the President\u2019s intention.  I\u2019m happy to check on the status and why \u2014 why there has been any delay. <\/p>\n<p>Q    And then following up on Catherine\u2019s question on the President using the word \u201cabortion\u201d yesterday and today, just to be more specific about it: Was that a conscious choice to use that word, since he hadn\u2019t been using it much before?  Did he specifically \u2014 now that the stakes are much higher, did he specifically start using word \u201cabortion\u201d because of that?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  No, he approved the statement, made comments of his own accord today.  So, I don\u2019t think there\u2019s more to analyze about it. <\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Hey, Jen.  The President tore into MAGA \u2014 as you referred to.  He called them an \u201cextremist group,\u201d and he also issued a statement on Ohio today when he was talking about Shontel Brown in the Democratic primary. <\/p>\n<p>So my question is: What is his reaction to the Republican Senate primary?  And does he view that as Trump gaining more control over the Senate and the process for potentially what happens two years from now?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m going to be very careful about getting into the midterms here.  I don\u2019t make the rules; I just follow the rules from this podium.  And I know the President, of course, as you noted, Geoff, spoke to \u2014 made comments himself this morning about the extreme direction the Republican Party is going in. <\/p>\n<p>So, look, I would just say: Our focus continues to be on highlighting the fact that congressional Republicans want to raise taxes on half of Americans, squeezing the budgets of middle-class families.  If you don\u2019t believe me, you can check out Senator Scott\u2019s website.  I guess he\u2019s called for that and we certainly agree; we hope you check out his website.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Is that why he tore into MAGA today?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I think he \u2014 I answered this a little bit earlier, but I\u2019m happy to reiterate.  You know, he has been struck by the hold his predecessor seems to have on far too many members of the party. <\/p>\n<p>And while he has always worked in good faith, will continue to work in good faith on addressing issues the American people have \u2014 whether it is bringing down costs, expanding access to healthcare. <\/p>\n<p>And there are areas where we feel we can have continued success.  Who \u2014 who is opposed to addressing opioids or making \u2014 doing more to help veterans and address burn pits?  But he is still going to call out where he sees extremist actions and extremist rhetoric. <\/p>\n<p>And I\u2019m just not going to get into specific outcomes of the primaries from here.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And just one last try on the abortion aspect.  Elizabeth Warren said she was \u201cangry\u201d by that draft opinion.  Was the President angered by the draft?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I think you heard anger in his voice yesterday, for sure. <\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Jen, yesterday, you said the President was still reviewing the report from his Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court.  That was issued several months ago.  I guess I\u2019m wondering why that review is taking so long.  And is there any renewed urgency on that review, given the draft that we\u2019ve seen leaked from the Court?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I think it\u2019s important to remember that the report was never meant to be recommendations.  In fact, it\u2019s not recommendations. <\/p>\n<p>It was an analysis done by 30 legal experts with a diversity of backgrounds and a diversity of views about a range of issues \u2014 not just Court expansion, but term limits and a range of issues. <\/p>\n<p>So \u2014 but it was never intended to have an outcome where he came out and said, \u201cI accept or decline recommendations.\u201d  It was just a resource he was looking to have, and one he appreciates and will continue to review.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Is there any renewed urgency though around weighing in on that report and what those experts, you know, put together on the Court since we\u2019ve seen this draft come out, though?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  In what aspect?<\/p>\n<p>Q    Seeing, you know, the \u2014 there was a lot of discussion around term limits that was in that report, any- \u2014 anything about the issues that they studied specifically.  And while it wasn\u2019t meant to be a recommendation, anything that the President has, you know, claimed could be \u2014 made changes to the Court.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I don\u2019t have any different or new announcements or positions to announce today.  His focus and, he believes, all of our focus needs to be on what we\u2019re doing to protect women\u2019s rights and women\u2019s access to healthcare.  And that\u2019s where his efforts will be focused in the foreseeable future. <\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks, Jen.  This morning, when the President was talking about the deficit, he said, \u201cMy plan to continue reducing the deficit\u2026\u201d \u2014 and he rattled off a couple of agenda items, including prescription drug reform, tax incentives for green energy, changes to the tax code \u2014 some pieces of the old Build Back Better bill. <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah. <\/p>\n<p>Q    And I just wonder: What is the President\u2019s plan to getting that through the Senate, given the narrowing legislative window for this year?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  To continue having conversations about it that we don\u2019t talk about publicly and encouraging members to have conversations with each other to see if we can come to a point where we have 50 votes to support a package moving forward.<\/p>\n<p>Q    But at this point, it doesn\u2019t seem like that\u2019s the case, given that Senator Manchin is off with \u2014 you know, trying to do a climate bill through a bipartisan working group and Senator Sinema continues to oppose changes to the tax code.  So is \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m just \u2014 I think there\u2019s a lot happening behind the scenes in Congress that people are declining to talk about. <\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Hi, Jen.  Thank you.  Two questions, please.  The \u201cMAGA crowd,\u201d as he called them today \u2014 this was almost half the people who voted in 2020.  Does the President ever feel that maybe there could have been done \u2014 he could have done more early on to try and reach out to those people? <\/p>\n<p>And does the extreme rhetoric basically signal that, you know, there\u2019s no going back now and they\u2019re sort of out of, you know, beyond the pale for him and \u2014 yeah?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I think what the President \u2014 one, the President will be judged by Americans by his actions and what he does to make their lives better. <\/p>\n<p>And the point he\u2019s making is that there are \u2014 the platform of and the policies of many \u2014 far too many of these Republicans \u2014 these \u201cMAGA Republicans,\u201d as he refers to them \u2014 follow the whims of calling out Mickey Mouse and opposing policies that will help make the lives better of many, many Americans who may have voted for Trump, may have been independent, may be Democrats \u2014 including lowering the cost of prescription drugs, lowering the cost of eldercare, doing more to expand access to healthcare.  And his view is that a lot of these policy positions and the rhetoric is extreme.  And that follows what we saw a pattern of by his \u2014 his predecessor. <\/p>\n<p>But he is going to continue to look for ways to work together \u2014 and work together with Republicans in good faith where there\u2019s opportunity.  And he believes you can do both.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Okay, thank you.  Totally different question on sanctions.  I know you said that he\u2019s going to be discussing that this week and \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 there\u2019s not much left of the week.  Is Patriarch Kirill a possible target of sanctions? <\/p>\n<p>And more generally, if you don\u2019t want to comment on that, does the President ever talk about Patriarch Kirill?  I mean, he\u2019s a religious man, and he\u2019s obviously keenly interested in other countries\u2019 religions.  He\u2019s emerged as a pretty remarkable figure and, you know, has to be sanctioned by the EU.  The Pope called him \u2014 said don\u2019t be \u201cPutin\u2019s alter boy.\u201d  Does the President ever talk about Patriarch Kirill?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I would say no one is safe from our sanctions.  We\u2019re continuing to review options, but I don\u2019t have any to preview today. <\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    A follow-up on those sanctions.  There seems to be a few holdouts in \u2014 within the EU, especially Hungary, for example \u2014 that are not so much on board with \u2014 especially the oil ban.  Is there any effort from the administration to sort of engage at any level on that topic to try to convince or give incentives to those holdouts to sort of get on board with the rest of the EU?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I mean, our view \u2014 you know, we, of course, broadly support Europe\u2019s efforts to deny Putin revenue to fund his war with the EU\u2019s new proposal.  But it\u2019ll be up to them to finalize.  We\u2019ve taken strong action to ban Russian energy, but we have also been very clear that we have always understood that Europe and many countries in Europe are in different circumstances. <\/p>\n<p>So we\u2019ll continue to work with a range of countries, you know, and \u2014 and applaud efforts to deny Putin\u2019s revenue \u2014 revenue to fund his war.  But I don\u2019t have any specific diplomatic engagement to read out here.  It just wouldn\u2019t be constructive.<\/p>\n<p>Q    On abortion, if the draft decision were to be sustained, obviously it would overturn Roe, but it would also overturn Casey.  And as you know, at the core of Casey is the question of whether governments can require women to get parental consent or spousal notice \u2014 give spousal notice.  Do you have a comment on that element of this?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m just not going to get ahead of a final opinion that has not yet been issued.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And then, just on the Summit of the Americas: The Secretary of State recently spoke with Juan Guaid\u00f3, expressed continued support for Guaid\u00f3.  Is he invited to the summit?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Let me see.  I know there\u2019s a lot of interest in this, and it\u2019s coming up soon.  So let me see if we can get you all just, kind of, a broad summary to the group of where things stand on the invitations.  It\u2019s a good question.<\/p>\n<p>Okay.  Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  This is throwing me off, but go ahead.  (Laughter.)<\/p>\n<p>Q    I was double booked, and he\u2019s earned a front-row seat (inaudible) \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yes, yes, yes.  Of course.<\/p>\n<p>Q    You\u2019ve been asked most of what I was wondering about abortion and Ukraine, but I am curious about this \u2014 and this follows up on the question about Patriarch Kirill.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    The Pope, this week, gave an interview to an Italian newspaper, offered to meet with Vladimir Putin in Moscow to try brokering a ceasefire, and says he thinks NATO\u2019s presence in countries near Russia, quote, perhaps \u201cfacilitated\u201d the invasion of Ukraine.  Has the President spoken directly at all to Pope Francis about the war in Ukraine?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m not aware of any recent calls he has had with the Pope.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Would he have any concern or preference about the Pope going to Russia and potentially brokering a ceasefire?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I have not \u2014 I have not discussed that with him.  But I would suspect that he would respect the decisions of the Pope to make any travel or engagements that he so chooses.<\/p>\n<p>Q    I know you\u2019ve said they speak or they\u2019ve communicated regularly.  Do you have any sense of when the last time might have been?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m happy to check if there\u2019s more we can read out for all of you, of course.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks, Jen.  Two questions.  Can you just preview what tomorrow\u2019s announcement of the administration\u2019s China strategy is going to look like?  And can you walk us through what that behind-the-scenes process looked like, putting this all together?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I know this is coming from the State Department, so I would really leave it to them to preview.  But I have nothing to \u2014 to preview for you from here.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Okay.  And if I could just ask about Taiwan \u2014 the Taiwanese government said yesterday that due to limited American production capacity, the delivery of U.S. howitzers will be significantly delayed by several years, and anti-aircraft missiles may also be affected.  So, are you concerned that these long delays and inventory issues will impact Taiwan\u2019s efforts to potentially fend off a (inaudible) \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I would really point you to the Defense Department to validate that or confirm where they are with these deliveries.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    About the summits next week \u2014 we have the ASEAN Summit and the COVID Summit.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Which one would you like me to ask about first?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:   Whatever one you\u2019d like.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Let\u2019s start with ASEAN, and let\u2019s just ask: What \u2014 what does the U.S. hope to achieve at the ASEAN Summit?  Are you looking to (inaudible) China or to isolate Russia?  And how do you plan to achieve \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m \u2014 I\u2019m happy \u2014 we will have more to preview about it as we get closer.  We\u2019re just not quite there yet.<\/p>\n<p>Q    So, looking at the COVID summit then, with this funding still in limbo, what does the U.S. hope to be able to bring to the table?  And please be as specific as you can: What does the U.S. plan to offer in the global fight against \u2014 against COVID, including maybe therapeutics, vaccines, so on and so forth?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I\u2019m not going to tell you all of our announcements several days in advance.  That wouldn\u2019t be a very effective communication strategy. <\/p>\n<p>What I will tell you, in terms of \u2014 our objectives for this summit are to \u2014 to have focused attention at the summit on the need, as a global community, to continue to do more to address the pandemic.  And we have done, far and away, more than the rest of the world.  We have talked in the past about the importance of other countries and other developed countries doing more \u2014 not just on vaccines but providing know-how, capacity, storage capacity, the range of tools that a ra- \u2014 that countries need.<\/p>\n<p>And we also know that it\u2019s not about just getting shots in arms, or it\u2019s not just about the vaccines themselves.  It\u2019s about ensuring that we are providing \u2014 you know, expanding and protecting the health workforce, expanding the supply of oxygen facilities, enhancing access to medical countermeasures.  These are all steps that we hope to and plan to discuss there.<\/p>\n<p>It is \u2014 there is no question that we will be advocating between now and then \u2014 and likely then as well \u2014 for how this shines a light on why we need more funding, not just domestically but internationally, so that we can continue to be the arsenal of vaccines for the world.  And this is an opportunity to do exactly that.<\/p>\n<p>But it should not be lost that the United States, regardless of that, continues to be far and away the largest contributor to the global fight against the pandemic.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And just springboarding on something that my colleague here asked about: commitments to allies like Taiwan \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 and to customers. <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Can Washington assure these allies and customers that you still have their back, that you still can support them in helping them defend themselves?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I think nothing has changed about our policy toward Taiwan or any of our other \u2014 other partners around the world that we have worked very closely with.  And I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any reason to question that. <\/p>\n<p>But I was pointing her to the Department of Defense, who can speak to the delivery of weapons and materials \u2014 that they have greater access to that information.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks, Jen.  I wanted to ask about the refugees from Ukraine.  Can you provide an update on your program that launched about a week ago \u2014 any update on people that have volunteered to sponsor refugees or interest from refugees abroad to enter the program?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  To the degree we have those numbers to provide, the Depa- \u2014 I mean, we would, but \u2014 someone has them \u2014 but they\u2019re in the Department of Homeland Security.  They\u2019re overseeing the implementation of the program, as you know.  I\u2019m happy to check with them, but you may want to go to them more directly.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And when was the last time that the President spoke with the Department of Homeland Security on the refugee program or was briefed on the updates on the program?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  He\u2019s been briefed repeatedly on the \u2014 on the program throughout the development of it and certainly will continue to be briefed on the status.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    I wanted to ask about Brittney Griner.  I know you\u2019ve responded to many questions about her.  But with the Olympians being here at the White House today \u2014 of course, she would potentially have been one of them, and she\u2019s away in Russia being detained right now.<\/p>\n<p>I wonder if you can update the public on why her situation is different, because you\u2019ve mentioned that it is not a normal hostage situation, so it\u2019s a bit different.  Can you explain to the public why her situation is different?<\/p>\n<p>And then I have one on abortion.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would note that, actually, the State Department changed the \u2014 how they classify \u2014 and this is up to them to change \u2014 her just a couple of days ago.  It doesn\u2019t mean that we are going to get into detail here about our efforts, because our focus is on, hopefully, bringing her home and being successful at that.<\/p>\n<p>But the State Department determined that the Russian Federation has wrong- \u2014 wrongfully detained U.S. citizen Brittney Griner.  They made that assessment about two days ago.<\/p>\n<p>We\u2019re going to continue to undertake efforts to provide appropriate support to her.  And what this notes, with this determination, is that the Special Prose- \u2014 Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Roger Carstens, who I mentioned earlier, will lead the interagency team for securing her release.<\/p>\n<p>So, while we\u2019re not going to, of course, get into internal deliberations or efforts, this \u2014 you know, the Department basically reviews cases of U.S. nationals detained abroad to determine if they\u2019re unlawful or wrongful, and this review assesses the facts of the case against numeral criteria \u2014 numerous criteria, and they made that conclusion just two days ago.<\/p>\n<p>Q    So, does that change our strategy on how we\u2019re working to get her to come back?  Does that change the timeline?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, again, as I noted, what it means is that the Spressel [sic] Pres- \u2014 Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Roger Carstens, will lead the interagency team.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Okay.  And then real quick on abortion: A Christian conservative \u2014 his name is Albert Mohler \u2014 has commented on President Biden\u2019s stance in an unusual position on abortion.  I\u2019m now quoting.  He said that, \u201cHe and his administration do not trust the public in various areas to have the right to determine whether or not abortion should be legal in that area or not.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>So, he\u2019s essentially saying that Biden does not think that states should have the right to determine how abortions \u2014 to the degree that abortions are legal or not.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  The President believes that it should continue to be federal law that women have the right to make choices with their doctors, as it has been for 50 years. <\/p>\n<p>And I would just say, with all due respect to the person you mentioned, even a Fox News poll earlier this month showed that 63 percent of Americans want Roe to stand.  So I think that\u2019s actually kind of an outlier position as it relates to the American public.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.  I\u2019d like to ask a question about Indo-Pacific strategy.  People are talking about Indo-Pacific economic framework, and allies and partners are anxious that we have not given the information on what this framework is going to look like \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 if it\u2019s going to replace something like TPP.  Could you give us some preview of what this framework is going to be about and if this is going to be an issue when the President visits Japan?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I just don\u2019t have anything to preview at this point.  I know there\u2019s a lot of interest in his trip to Asia, understandably; it\u2019s going to be a great trip.  But we\u2019ll have more \u2014 we\u2019ll bring Jake Sullivan or others to the briefing room to preview everything about the trip for all of you.<\/p>\n<p>I certainly recognize that the Summit of the Americas is coming up very soon, so I will work and hopefully get you guys all more preview information after this briefing.  And maybe we\u2019ll have more to say tomorrow.<\/p>\n<p>Okay.  Thanks so much, everybody.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Washington, DC&#8230;Hi, everyone. All right. Just two items to highlight for all of you at the top. Two short items. Today, we announced an upcoming Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health. This will bring attention to the burden of hunger and diet-related disease, which were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the conference, we will [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":140379,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_cbd_carousel_blocks":"[]","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,5,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-140377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-government","category-news","last_archivepost"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Chrome-Legacy-Window-552022-62009-AM.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=140377"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140377\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":140378,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140377\/revisions\/140378"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/140379"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=140377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=140377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=140377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}