James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:10 P.M. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone — or good afternoon. Okay, two items for all of you at the top.
Today, the Biden administration is launching House America, a new initiative for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness that will engage state and local leaders to set and achieve ambitious goals for reducing homelessness in America.
Homelessness was on the rise before the pandemic, and the last couple of years have just exacerbated the problem. On any given night, more than half a million Americans were enduring the pandemic without the safety and protection of a home.
Thanks to the President's American Rescue Plan — and Congress's — everybody's American Rescue Plan — communities now have historic housing resources to help more Americans obtain the safety of a stable home, including 70,000 emergency housing vouchers, $5 billion in HOME grants, and significant investments to preserve and protect housing on Tribal lands. In addition, communities have $350 billion in state and local Fiscal Recovery Funds from the Department of Treasury to support many needs, including homelessness and housing instability.
So, today, HUD is asking state, Tribal, and local leaders to work collaboratively with them to use these ARP funds and other existing federal, state, and local resources to rapidly reduce homelessness in their communities and add new units of affordable and supportive housing into the development pipeline by the end of 2022.
The initiative will promote the use of "housing first" — the proven theory that the best way to stabilize the life of someone experiencing homelessness is to ensure that they have a home first without preconditions — and so we are moving forward with that.
I also wanted to note that, tomorrow, the Senate Committee on Small Business is set to consider the nomination of Dilawar Sieed [sic] — Syed, excuse me — for deputy administrator for the Small Business Administration.
He's a well-qual- — he's well qualified to serve as deputy administrator of the SBA, which has been critical in providing relief to small businesses in the midst of the pandemic. He's lived the American Dream as an immigrant and as CEO of a small startup, with — that will help small businesses — that has been helping small businesses continue to create jobs.
He has the endorsement of more than 200 individuals and groups, and yet his confirmation is being held up in an unprecedented way and for no good reason.
These members have refused to show up at committee meetings, meaning a quorum cannot be reached and a vote cannot be held on his nomination. By refusing to show up at committee meetings, they are not just blocking his vote but also slowing help to American small-business owners and workers who are trying to build back [from] the pandemic.
So we wanted to call out that hearing that will happen tomorrow.
Darlene, why don't you kick us off?
Q Thanks, Jen. A couple of questions for you. The U.N. Secretary-General spoke to the AP over the weekend. And in the interview, he called on the U.S. and China to repair a relationship that he says is, quote, "completely dysfunctional." He warned of a potential new Cold War and said the U.S. and China need to be cooperating more on COVID and other global challenges.
So, do you have — how would you respond to the U.N. Secretary-General on his call for the U.S. and China to be more friendly, I suppose?
MS. PSAKI: Well, first, I would say the President's view and this administration's view is that our relationship with China is one not of conflict, but of competition. And so, we wouldn't agree with the characterization of the relationship.
As I would note in the readout of the President's call with President Xi just last week — a 90-minute call that covered an extensive list of topics — it was a conversation that was candid, but it was certainly not elevated. And we recognize that China is a country that while we have — while we may take issue with some means they engage in the world, we also have areas we will want to continue to work together.
And that is certainly many of the topics that were raised by the Secretary-General. The President obviously has a meeting with him later this evening.
I would also note that, tomorrow, the President will deliver a speech, as you all know, at the U.N. General Assembly, and he will make absolutely clear that he is not looking to pursue a future — a new Cold War with any country in the world. We will continue to pursue our interests. We will continue to lift up global priorities. But that is not the objective or the policy of the United States.
Q Another China-related question. Can you say how concerned the administration is about the stability of China's real estate sector, given the issues with China's Evergrande? And is it the administration's view that the People's Bank of China can keep those issues from spilling over into other sectors and possibly affecting U.S. interests?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first note that this is a company based in China whose activities are overwhelmingly centered in China. That being said, we always are monitoring global markets — obviously from the Department of Treasury primarily, including the assessment of any risk to the U.S. economy — and stand prepared to respond appropriately if needed. But that monitoring would happen primarily from the Department of Treasury and our Secretary of Treasury, of course.
Q And then one more really quickly. Is there any reaction from the White House to the conviction, earlier today, of the man who inspired "Hotel Rwanda"? He's a U.S. resident. He was the recipient of a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
MS. PSAKI: I understand. And I would like to get you a more comprehensive reaction to it. I know this is a question that others will have in the room, so let me venture to do that after the briefing.
Go ahead.
Q Okay, what does the President want to tell President Macron about the submarine deal?
MS. PSAKI: Well, first, I think as had been noted in some reports, so let me just confirm this, I guess: The President will have a call — it has yet — is — we're still working on the scheduling of it — with President Macron in the coming days. And what I expect the President will do on that call is reaffirm our commitment to working with one of our oldest and closest partners on a range of challenges that the global community is facing. And he, of course, will discuss recent developments and our ongoing work together on a range of issues — certainly our shared interest in the Indo-Pacific, but also a range of global challenges and issues.
I would also note that the President spoke, in his remarks last week — acknowledged in his remarks, I should say — he acknowledged that France has a substantial Indo-Pacific presence and is a key partner and ally in strengthening security and prosperity.
But most importantly, we continue to look forward to our close alliance with France — one of our strongest partnerships — as we work to address a range of issues in the world.
Q And you have no plans to abandon the submarine deal, do you?
MS. PSAKI: No, we do not.
Q Okay. And then, secondly, back in July, you opted not to lift to travel restrictions on international visitors. What's changed between then and now?
MS. PSAKI: Well, back in July, we also announced that there were a series of working groups that were both interagency and working with a range of countries and partners in the world to determine what the most equitable and clear policies should be, moving forward, to resume broader international travel. And the older rules were not equitable, in our view, and they were a bit confusing. And so, this was an effort to pursue that.
As was announced in a call earlier today, but I can reaffirm some of the specifics that were announced: We — starting in November, we will be implementing — I should say, in early November, we'll be putting in place strict protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19 from passengers flying internationally into the United States by requiring that adult foreign nationals traveling to the United States be fully vaccinated. Obviously, this is the conclusion of a policy process on that particular issue — an important one facing many people around the world.
Go ahead.
Q Hey, Jen. Two quick questions on COVID, and then I —
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
Q — have one foreign policy question for you. Now that the FDA's vaccine advisors have recommended boosters for people 65 and up, how soon do you expect President Biden to get his booster shot? And will he do so on camera?
MS. PSAKI: He will do so, and he will do so on camera. I don't have a date for you exactly.
It's important to note — just to take a slight step back — that there are still a couple of additional steps in the process. While, you know, we view the news on Friday as an important step forward in protecting more people, saving more lives, the addi- — the steps now is that ACIP is planning to meet. Based on their recommendation, we're, of course, prepared to operationalize on the plan. And that includes having the President get his booster shot as well.
Q And is the President still being tested for COVID regularly? And if so, how often?
MS. PSAKI: He is tested regularly. He was tested last week, and his test was negative. But he is tested regularly.
Q And just lastly on this front: Has he gotten or does he plan to get the flu shot?
MS. PSAKI: I will have — I will talk to his doctor. I got a flu shot last week. They're broadly available. But I will check and see if we have an answer to that question.
Q And then just on the foreign policy front, with the U.N. visit tomorrow: President Biden came into office declaring that "America is back" and vowing to "reinvigorate" U.S. alliances. But in recent weeks, we've seen European allies be unsettled by the execution of the U.S.'s withdrawal from Afghanistan; the administration has admitted to mistakenly killing 10 civilians in this drone strike; and now the U.S.'s oldest ally, France, has recalled its ambassador after being blindsided by this submarine deal with Australia. So, my question to you is, how is the President going to restore U.S. credibility at the U.N. this week after all that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, why don't I give you a — preview a bit of what you can hear the President talk about tomorrow in his remarks. And, obviously, as you know, he'll have a number of bilateral meetings tomorrow, as well as later this week. And to the degree you all have questions, I'm happy to speak to those as well.
But what you'll hear him talk about tomorrow is the President is going to lay out the case for why the next decade will determine our future, not just for the United States, but for the global community. And he will talk — and this will be a central part of his remarks — about the importance of reestablishing our alliances after the last several years.
I also think it's important to note that reestablishing alliances doesn't mean that you won't have disagreements, or you won't have disagreements about how to approach any particular issue in the world. That is not the bar for having an alliance and important and — partnership. And that has never been and it is not currently. And his — with the goal, of course, of increasing the prospect of security and diminishing the prospect of war.
He'll also make clear that for many of the greatest concerns we have, they cannot be solved or even addressed through the force of arms — whether that is preparing for the next pandemic, something the United States continues to be the global leader on; providing more vaccines to the world than every other country combined; addressing the threat of climate change as we look — all look ahead to COP26; leveling the economic playing field; fighting for democracy at home and abroad; and against threats from cybersecurity — ranging from cybersecurity to emerging technologies and terrorism.
Finally, he will also reaffirm that the United States is not turning inward, including as we look to the decision the United States made, the President made, to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. Anyone who reads that is not — in that way is not reading it accurately. He will talk about his objective of turning our focus and our resources to the priorities and regions of the world that are the most consequential.
Q But just given what's happened in recent weeks and some of the criticism that he's faced in many of the capitals of the allies whose partnerships he plans to, you know — and vowed to reinvigorate, does he believe there's work to be done to restore that credibility? Or, you know, to —
MS. PSAKI: Is there a country or —
Q — address the criticism that —
MS. PSAKI: Well, tell me which — which country is telling you that we don't have credibility in the world?
Q I didn't say countries are saying there's no creditability. But there has been criticism in foreign capitals in recent weeks, including with many of the partners who the President said he was going to reinvigorate these alliances with. So how does he square —
MS. PSAKI: But what I think it's —
Q — what has happened —
MS. PSAKI: The reason I asked that question is because I think it's important to note that criticism of a decision is different from criticism of the credibility and leadership of the United States, broadly speaking. And if you look back through the course of the last several decades, prior to the last administration, there are points of disagreement, including when we have disagreed with the decisions other countries are making, decision points — when countries have disagreed with the decisions we're making.
But the larger point here — and what you'll hear the President talk about tomorrow — is that we are committed to those alliances, and that always requires work from every president, from every global leader. And his commitment is to make sure we are directing our energy, our resources, our diplomacy, and our efforts on the biggest challenges we're facing in the world.
And to him, that is the threat of climate, the threat of democracy, threat of leveling — the importance of leveling the economic playing field, addressing and preparing for the next pandemic. Those are all issues that we will continue to work with our partners on, including those who may disagree with decisions we've made about a variety of issues.
Go ahead, David.
Q Back on the submarine deal. So in the conversation with President Macron, is it President Biden's view that the United States is responsible, in any way, for some kind of reparation, some kind of deal that will make up for part of the economic loss and also give a greater sense of a working partnership? Or is it his view that it's really up to Australia to make up any kind of economic loss out of this if there's any loss to be made up at all?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I know from a range of reporting, including perhaps yours, that there were a couple hundred jobs that they anticipate being lost in France. And certainly, that is a factor for them, domestically. We understand that.
But I think you can expect the President's call will be more about reaffirming the pr- — our commitment, the United States' commitment to our alliance, to our partnership, and to working together on a range of issues, including security in the Indo-Pacific — that that will be the broad focus of the call.
Q And one more. When you were in the Obama administration, we often talked about the need to reduce the amount of highly enriched uranium that's moving around the world. President Obama ran a number of summits, you'll recall, that were aimed at converting reactors from HEU to LEU.
So here we are helping Australia — a very good player, a well-known non-proliferation advocate — by having them build HEU reactors or building it for them. Without any reference to problems with Australia, what message does that send to the rest of the world about how committed we are on this?
MS. PSAKI: Well, first, David, the President's position and commitment to non-proliferation has not changed. We're committed to renewing American leadership in non-proliferation and addressing the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons. This, in our view, is an exceptional case, not a precedent-setting case. As many of you know and have followed this closely, we're not talking about nuclear-armed submarines. I know you're asking me about enriched uranium —
Q Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: — but it's important for people to understand that as well. These are conventionally armed submarines that are powered by nuclear reactors.
There's also an 18-month process that we are undergoing on the implementation of this. But again, this was a decision made working with a country that has a long history the — Australia — as does the United Kingdom, as does the United States — of being steadfast in support for nuclear non-proliferation and for the regime and its cornerstone, the NPT. And we all are committed to complying with our respective non-proliferation obligations as we implement over the next 18 months.
Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Jen. Follow-up on Frank's, first of all, you said you expect a call in the next few days. Have the French actually committed to a call?
MS. PSAKI: We're in — yes, we're in active conversation about a call.
Q I just wanted to make sure you weren't being sent to voicemail or anything like that.
MS. PSAKI: No, I don't think so.
Q Following up on the drone strike last week that the Pentagon now admits was a tragic mistake: What was the President's response when he learned about that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, the President was briefed on Friday morning about the report that was going to be released and put out. I would say first: The President's view and all of our view is that the loss of any civilian life is a tragedy. As was made clear in the comments by the Secretary of Defense, by General McKenzie, this was done in error. And clearly, the investigation that will continue is something the President broadly supports.
So, as a human being, as a President, as somebody who has overseen loss in a variety of scenarios both as a leader and personally, it is — his reaction is it's a tragedy, and every loss is a tragedy, and he supports the efforts to — the effort to move this forward as quickly as possible and to have a thorough investigation.
Q You mentioned there's an ongoing investigation. Should it be anticipated that someone would be fired, demoted, not promoted, passed over, and held accountable within the military ranks for this?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what's important is that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman — and General McKenzie came forward and made very clear that this was — they wanted to see this move forward quickly, they want it to be as transparent as possible, they wanted to learn from what had happened.
It's also important to note what the circumstances were here in — when this strike was made: This was a scenario where there were direct threats from ISIS-K against our troops who were on the ground in Afghanistan. And that was the scenario where the strike was made.
Obviously, it was done in error, and obviously there was a horrific tragedy that happened, but I'm not going to predict what the impact will be.
Q Two more quick ones — one more on Afghanistan. Back on October — or August 26th, the President said, "I've also ordered my commanders to develop operational plans to strike ISIS-K assets, leadership, and facilities. We will respond with force and precision at our time, at the place we choose, and the moment of our choosing." Should we still be anticipating that there will be military response to what happened there in Kabul?
MS. PSAKI: Against ISIS-K?
Q Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Yes. I think it's important — this is a good question that's been asked. I think this is a version of what you're asking, but others have asked me this.
You know there's a difference between a self-defense strike based on an imminent threat to U.S. forces — that's why I referenced that — who were obviously on the ground, and these were threats — as you all lived through and covered and as we communicated about in the moment — and an over-the-horizon strike, where we typically expect to have more time to assess both the threat and the potential target. That is a point General McKenzie made — an important point, I think, for people to understand as we assess over-the-horizon threats and targets moving forward in the future.
Q So, yes, at some point there might be something.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say, of course, the President's desire to continue to go after ISIS-K has not changed.
Q Okay. And then just the one last one then — unrelated: the issue of immigration — the ruling from the parliamentarian that legalization for DREAMers can't be part of the reconciliation as currently crafted. Given this is a top priority for a key voting bloc — Latinos here in this White House — how personally engaged might the President get on this? Do you guys have specific alternative proposals that have a chance of actually getting passed under this Congress?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there are a number of senators who have spoken to their intention of putting forward alternative proposals because of their commitment and our shared commitment, of course, to moving immigration reform forward and protecting DREAMers and others.
And so, the President supports those efforts and certainly he has long stated his support for immigration being a part of reconciliation. That's really the next step in the process, but there are a number of members who are already working on that.
Q Jen, immigration and Haiti.
MS. PSAKI: Let — I'll go to you next, April. Let me just go — go ahead.
Q Well, I'll start there.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
Q So the — the crisis at the border in Del Rio: We heard DHS say they're going to continue expulsions under Title 42. So what is the White House's message to Haitian immigrants seeking asylum? Is there a place for them?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it's important for people to understand a couple of the components of what's happening right now on the ground. One, we extended TPS several months ago and again reevaluated to ensure that we were taking into account what was happening on the ground in Haiti. So that —
Q But for the people that are here.
MS. PSAKI: I understand, but that does apply to people who are here who arrived before a certain date, and I think that's an important component of what's happening.
If you're talking about the situation on the ground in Del Rio, one, it's a challenging situation. It's devastating to watch this footage. I think it's important though for people to also know that what we're trying to do is also protect people.
One, we've been conveying that this is not the time to come. We have been implementing Title 42. That's not just about people in the United States; that's also about protecting migrants who would come in — come in mass groups and be in mass groups.
We are also surging resources and taking a multi-pronged approach. We've been working with the American Red Cross to bing [sic] in — bring in much-needed resources. We've worked with World Central Kitchen to bring in meals. And we have been expediting repatriation flights both to a range of countries in South and Central America where people may have come from, if they are — can be accepted back, and some back to Haiti.
That is what our focus is on at this point in time. And our message continues to be, as you've heard Secretary Mayorkas convey: Now is not the time to come, for a range of reasons, including we don't have the immigration system up and running in the way we want, including there is still a pandemic and Title 42 remains in place. And these are the steps that we're taking in part to protect the border communities, as well as the migrants themselves.
Q On a different topic, quickly. There will be a government shutdown if Congress doesn't act in 10 days. Can you tell us what the impact of a government shutdown would be on the COVID response from this White House?
MS. PSAKI: Well, our effort right now is to prevent a government shutdown and to ensure we are not facing a government shutdown. And, as we get closer, we can certainly discuss that, but right now that's where our energies are.
Go ahead, April.
Q Jen, back on Haiti. I hear that, but digging in the weeds a little bit more, the process for Haitian migrants has always, in this nation, been different than other nations. You have people like Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee who's calling for equal treatment and fairness when it comes to the Haitians at the border and overall. You're allowing Afghans to come in, Afghan supporters to come in, as well as Mexicans, and then Haitians are not allowed. Can you speak to that — the issue of equity and fairness?
MS. PSAKI: Absolutely, April. I appreciate your question. Let me just take these different pieces side by side. Right? One, our immigration policy is not about one country or discriminating against one country over another. We want to end that and put — and hopefully put an end to what we saw over the last four years.
Let me start with Afghan allies. Afghans who are arriving in our country are entering in a sanctioned and orderly process that includes vetting and security screenings led by the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security. It's not about one particular country of origin, but we've outlined very specifically in here what those processes look like as individuals who are evacuated, go to lily-pad countries, go through security vetting before they come to United States on a range of programs.
As it relates to individuals who are coming across the border: Wherever they're coming from — whatever country they're coming from, Title 42 remains in place. There are a range of programs that people who are in the country can apply for or may be eligible for, including TPS for Haiti, which is something that we still are continuing to look at and review.
The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security are constantly assessing circumstances on the ground that would necessitate a TPS designation for any country, and they've obviously made a couple of designations over the course of the last couple of months as it relates to Haiti.
Q And no matter whether it's the people who left — the Haitians that left in 2010 and traveled to South America and are now trying to travel here — or the ones who left after this earthquake — either way, what is there for them to go back to when these planes are taking them back? The nation is in unrest. The President was assassinated. There are gangs that people are scared to — they're scared of. Democratic rule is not necessarily in place. The people are calling — particularly those here in this nation are calling for the elections not to be held, you know, on time because of unrest there. And then you also have the issue of the earthquakes.
So what is there to go back to? What are you deporting them back to?
MS. PSAKI: Well, April, I will say that our objective and our focus is not only in implementing current immigration policies. We have also been working to provide a range of assistance, working closely with officials from the government as individuals are going back to Haiti, to provide a range of financial assistance, to provide a range of technical assistance. That is ongoing.
And we certainly support and want to be good actors in supporting Haiti during a very difficult time, as you noted, with a government that is still working to get back to a point of stability, with recovery from an earthquake. And that's why we have a range of programs, options, as well as financial support in place.
Okay. Go ahead.
