James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:38 P.M. EDT
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right, everyone. Good afternoon.
Q Good afternoon.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. A couple things at the top, and then we'll get to our guest.
Today, President Biden signed an executive order sta- –establishing the White House —
Q (Sneezes.)
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Bless you.
— establishing the White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Hispanic-Serving Institutions, alongside nearly two dozen champions for these institutions and Latino communities.
The president also announced that today we are investing nearly $19 million to build research infrastructure for five HSIs.
We know that these institutions make an extraordinary contribution to our nation's higher education system and shape the future of the nation, and over half of all Hispanic and Latino students attend a Hispanic-Serving Institution.
Today's announcements are part of the historic actions this administration has taken to expand economic opportunity for Latino communities.
Next, one year ago today, President Biden issued a landmark executive order to ensure that America leads the way in seizing the promise and managing the risks of A.I. The executive order directed sweeping actions to manage security risks, protect Americans' privacy, advance civil rights, and stand up for consumers and workers, and promote innovation and competition.
Today, President Biden announced that federal agencies have completed on schedule each action that the executive order tasked for this past year, more than a hundred in all. As President Biden has said, A.I. is the most consequential technology of our time.
The president and the vice president will continue working to ensure that this technology is developed in a way that works for the American people.
We have chair of the Econo- — of the Council of Economic Advisers, Jared Bernstein, with us today to talk about some recent economic news. The economy has grown — has grown 12.6 percent under this administration, more than any presidential term in 25 years.
We have gone from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression to the strongest economy in the world: 16 million jobs created and the lowest unemployment of any administration in 50 years. And inflation has fallen to 2.4 percent, the same rate as right before the pandemic, with incomes up nearly $4,000.
Still, we know that there is more work to do, and we'll keep fighting to lower costs and grow the middle class.
With that, Jared, I know you have more to share about this.
CHAIR BERSTEIN: Thank you, Karine, for inviting me back. And thanks to my CEA team for helping prepare the information I'm about to share with you. This has been a busy and quite positive data week so far, and it's not over.
We learned today that real GDP rose 2.8 percent last quarter, largely accounted for by strong consumer spending. The quarterly PCE price index — this is the inflation measure watched most closely by the Federal Reserve — grew at an annualized rate of 1.5 percent last quarter. Consumer spending continues to come in strong, backed by the tailwind of a persistently tight labor market and easing inflation.
Real after-tax income was up a solid 1.6 percent in Q3. That's more buying power and more breathing room for American households.
In other words, this is another in a series of GDP reports showing the U.S. economy is growing above trend and, as the slide on my left — your left, my right — shows, is — is outpacing other advanced economies. This is the U.S. and, you see, well ahead of the pack.
We also learned yesterday that consumer spending — I'm sorry, that consumer confidence — consumer confidence spiked in October, up about 10 percent for the month, its largest monthly jump in three and a half years. Relatedly, the gas price this morning was $3.14 per gallon and is below $3 per gallon in 20 states.
These data are consistent with the most important dynamics of the macroeconomy during our administration — strong GDP growth, strong job growth, accompanied by falling inflation.
In fact, as CEA has shown, real GDP is up just — just under 13 percent, as Karine said, since the president took office — and there you see that in the last bar there — since the president took office and has consistently beat forecasters' expectation.
Case in point, if we compare real GDP, where G- — where GD- — the level of real GDP is today with the Congressional Budget's Office — with the Congressional Budget Office's last pre-pandemic forecast, today's level is $9,800 higher per capita than it was expected to be.
Real wages and incomes have also consistently been on the upswing, with real incomes up almost $4,000 during this administration, boosting workers' buying power.
Now, on Friday, we'll get the October jobs report, which will reflect the labor market impact of several strikes, Hurricane Helene, and possibly Hurricane Milton.
The BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, strike tracker estimates that there are three strikes that will be reflected in Friday's report, reducing national payroll employment by about 41,000 jobs — a number well above the usual monthly strike count.
Note that the East Coast port strike ended before it could have an impact or an effect on the October payrolls.
Regarding the hurricanes, outside analysts estimate that the extreme weather could lower — could — lower payroll employment by as many as 60,000 jobs; though, unlike the strike estimate, this estimate is subject to considerable uncertainty.
In other words, outside estimates suggest that strikes and weather-related events could collectively lower October payrolls by — actually, could collectively lower the change in the October payroll by as much as 100,000 jobs.
Now, while — while we're doing all we can to help with these temporary disruptions, we remain confident in the underlying strength of the U.S. labor market. At the same time, it's important to keep in mind that these disruptions will make interpreting this month's jobs report harder than usual.
Despite the recent positive data flow, let me be crystal clear that there are no victory laps here. We know that prices are still too high for families, making our cost-cutting agenda as urgent as ever, and we will continue to fight to lower costs in key areas, including health care, prescription drugs, childcare, housing, and more.
But what these data do show is a strong economic foundation that we must continue building upon. We must especially maintain this progress against efforts by congressional Republicans to drive inflation up with a large national sales tax in the form of tariffs, and we will fight their efforts to repeal the very cost-cutting measures I just referenced.
With that, I'll take your questions.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Aamer.
Q Thank you. There are signs that U.S. consumer durability is due to the spending by affluent households. I was wondering if you could just address how does this square with the administration's bigger message about focusing on the middle class and the poor? Is this not just what we're seeing, weal- — the wealthy doing better and the middle class staying at the same or even doing worse?
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, first of all, one thing we know — we've documented this a great deal, but there have been some newspaper articles that also have this in the past week — is that when labor markets are persistently tight — and, as you heard Karine say, the unemployment rate has been at a 50-year low in terms of its average over our watch — that tends to disproportionately help the most vulnerable families.
So, one thing we can tell you with great certainty is that wages and incomes have grown most quickly for those in the bottom half of the — of the income or wage scale.
Now, you mentioned consumer balances. So, one thing that often gets looked at at this point in time is these balances and their — and their trends without reference to income. You have to really look at debt service obligations: how much people are — how — what — what is the burden on their income when they have to service their debt.
So, let me share a few numbers with you.
Consumer debt service ratios, okay? So, this is consumer debt — servicing your consumer debt as a share of your disposable income. This is a Federal Reserve number. And the most recent data is for the second quarter of this year.
In '24 Q2, the consumer debt service ratio was 5.6 percent — 5.6 percent of disposable personal income for consumers to service their debt.
In the quarter before the pandemic, it was 5.8 percent. So, it's actually a tick down.
The average over the full spate of the data is just under 6 percent. So, again, that's a measure where we're doing pretty well relative to historical trends.
I think the key here is that when thinking about debt, we have to think about debt service as a share of income. We have to look at the debt — it's something we track carefully; you're right to raise it — but we also have to look at the income trends, which have actually been particularly favorable for lower-income families.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q Thank you so much. So, you talked about the further need to continuing to lower prices for Americans. The vice president has talked a lot about going after corporate price gouging and groceries. So, just how much is corporate price gouging to blame for inflation and the prices of groceries? And how effective would a federal ban on corporate price gouging be?
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, one thing that has really struck me and our team at CEA and NEC is the extent to which profit margins remain elevated and labor share of income remains somewhat lower — that is the share of national income, you know, going to workers. Typically, in a strong economy, we like to see that tilting up. And we have seen it trending up, much in the spirit of the answer to the last question I just gave, with the particular benefits going to lower-income families.
But profits are still quite elevated, and we see that particularly in the grocery sector. So, I do think there's a connection between elevated profits and some of the price movements we've seen.
In terms of the impact of legislation, look, I think where the vice president is coming from there is that there are a bunch of states that already have the authority to take action against price gouging, for example, in the — in the case of an extreme weather event. And, you know, nobody should be ripping off consumers on a bottle of water when they're in the midst of a disaster.
Having that legislation at the federal level, I think that makes a lot of sense.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Andrea.
Q Jared, I want to ask you about — you know, we're in the — less than a week to go before the election. I know you can't talk about the election, but can you say a few words about what you think the impact would be of the tariffs that former President Trump has sug- — you know, has proposed, in terms of, you know, the inflationary impact? And what can you do now, over the next three months, if he were to win the election, to secure the — the changes that have been made policy wise that have, you know, allowed the kind of positive trends that you've — you've outlined here?
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, on the tariffs, there have been numerous outside analysis of the impact of not just the tariffs but an agenda that has sweeping tariffs — 60 percent on China, 10 or 20 percent on all imports coming in; de- — deportations; and compromising the independence of the Federal Reserve. Outside analysts have correctly labeled that as a pretty toxic inflationary brew, and I very much agree with that.
So, the first point is that I think it's — I think that the consensus among the, at least, economics community is that that is an agenda that pushes exactly the wrong way if we're trying to help households deal with price pressures, with cost pressures.
But then if you th- — if you then consider repealing the — the IRA, now you're talking about taking a direct hit on measures that are actively in place: legislative measures that are at work in the economy, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, lowering the cost of health care coverage, lowering the cost of insulin. Those are — those are action items that are in the economy, helping families as we speak. To repeal those is to raise those prices.
In terms of — your second question was — oh, how — so, look, I mean, I'm not going to get into, kind of, the politics of — of what one victory would be relative the other. As you say, I can't talk electoral politics.
I do think it's important and interesting to note that the investments that this president and vice president have overseen have gone to all parts of the country and have disproportionately gone to places that have been historically left behind, places that have suffered from hollowing out by the loss of factories, by the loss of manufacturing jobs. And these places are just as likely — in fact, I believe, more likely — to be red than blue.
And there are many representatives I've seen with all different stripes who are pretty unhappy about the idea of repealing those measures, because they see them actively at work building a factory in their district.
So, I think it would be economic malpractice to reverse such positive developments. And I think there are members on both sides of the aisle who would agree with that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Go ahead.
Did — do you have a follow-up?
Q Just a quick follow-up.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.
Q Would you — would you stay on if — if Harris won and asked you to stay on?
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Yeah, I'm not going to speculate about that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Go ahead, Kayla.
Q Thank you, Karine. Jared, I have two questions, if I may. The first is on the overall economic agenda. You point out that economic growth has been the best of any administration since the turn of the century. You've had consistently better-than-expected economic data for the last four years, but yet, Americans, by and large, don't give the administration credit for that. And in a recent poll by the Associated Press, 7 in 10 said the economy is going in the wrong direction. Why do you think that continues to be the case?
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, I said in my comments — and I've said every time I've talked, either it's from here at the podium with Karine or out there in front of the cameras, probably in interviews with you as well, Kayla — that — that prices are s- — are still too high for — for too many people, for too many products, too many households. And that's why our cost-cutting agenda is as urgent today as it was yesterday or before we got any of these reports.
There's no economic report that is going to make any of us say, "Oh, well, we don't have to worry about that anymore" in terms of cutting the cost of drugs or health care or health coverage or — or housing or childcare.
I mean, those are serious structural issues where we have an affordability shortfall in housing and childcare, and the president and vice president have robust plans to go after them. We need Congress to work with us on that. And in my view, that is nothing like a red or a blue issue. You cannot find a state in this country that doesn't need more affordable housing and more affordable childcare.
And I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find plans that are more robust than the ones we've articulated to add to the supply of affordable housing and add to the supply of affordable childcare.
So, we just need to roll up our sleeves and work together on those issues on behalf of the American people.
At the same time, I did mention that consumer confidence spiked in October. I don't want to over torque on one month, but we do see an — an upward trend. And I think that that upward trend, while it's not where we want it to be, it's moving in the right direction. That's what I mean when I say "building on the foundation we have."
I think that upward trend in consumer confidence, in sentiment, while not where we want it to be — our work is not done — is telling us that easing inflation, strong growth, a solid job market, and real wage and income gains are helping to reach American households. But our work isn't done.
Q You just mentioned the difference in the ideologies and the platforms of the two candidates for office through the perspective of outside analysts. And I know that you can't comment specifically on the election, but given that GDP is backward-looking data that goes through just the end of September and the fact that this election has been in a dead heat in recent weeks, I'm wondering in some of the more real-time data that you look at, if you're seeing that election uncertainty play out in any consumer or business behavior.
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I think that — well, here's a really arcane way of answering your question, and then I'll try to speak English. But the arcane way is — and feel free to go ahead and test this — I believe that if you put the economic indicators that we've been generating in almost any election model, it would show the incumbent party winning. All right? Others have done that. You can look at those models.
So, I — I think that — that — I don't necessarily buy the idea that these are necessarily backward-looking indicators. To be a little technical, if you look at one of the line items in the GDP report today, private domestic — private domestic spending, which is basically consumer spending plus business investment — consumer spending plus business — take out net exports, take out inventories, take out government, take out a lot of the noisy stuff, and look at the core of the private economy — again, consumer spending and private investment — it was up 3.2 percent, higher than the GDP, which was up 2.8.
The reason I reference that is that is the best predictor of where GDP is heading. "PDFP" is what we call it. We've written about it on our — on our website today. Please read the C- — CEA blog and follow our tweets. (Laughter.) And — and that — that's a forward-looking measure. So, I feel pretty confident in those assertions.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Ed, in the back. Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Jared and Karine. So, average hourly wages, Jared, are down 1.4 percent from the month President Biden and Vice President Harris got into office in December of 2021. Overall prices are up 20 percent in that same time. Americans have racked up a record amount of credit card debt — $1.14 trillion. So, why does this economic growth come with such hardship?
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: So, we've had this conversation before, but let's have it again. I think you make an analytic mistake, with respect. When — when you start measuring wage trends from — what? — I guess of January '21 — is that what you're doing?
Q Yeah. January of 2021, yeah.
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: January of 2021.
Q Yeah.
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: I don't have the graphic here, but we have it all over the place, and I'll make sure you and others get it.
Wages were spiking in that month. Now, how the heck could wages be spiking? I mean, going way up. It looks like a mountain peak. How could wages be spiking in such a lousy economic month of January '21? The reason is that that is the heart of pandemic employment displacement. Who gets displaced? Low-wage workers. So, if you compare to that mountain peak, you're always going to get a decline, and so it's a distorted measure.
What you want to do is compare to a period, say, before the pandemic to where we are now, and if you do that, you see wages are up, you see incomes are up, just like I — I stated in my — in my comments today. And we have many of these indicators that we're happy to share with you.
I think, again, on the — on the consumer credit point, it's important to look not just at consumer credit but at debt service relative to income. We do see incomes — as I've mentioned, incomes have been rising — real incomes have been rising at a good clip, and, therefore, people have been able to service their debt at levels that are historically pretty low.
So, look, it's something we have to watch. I do thin- — one else — thing that's happening and that — that this may — this may resonate with you a bit more, because it's a — it's, again, related to pandemic — pandem- — pandemic economics, which is its own weird beast.
One of the things that we saw in the pandemic was that savings rates went also through the roof. People had what economists call "excess savings," partly because they were spending less on services — right? — they couldn't go out — and partly because of fiscal support.
Well, those excess savings led to low-income people having more savings than they'd ever had before. Their FICO — their credit rates — their credit scores were going up because their savings were so uniquely high. And so, there's probably also a dynamic where people are needing to adapt to a world without those excess savings. And that — that also probably takes a little bit of time.
Q But it seems — you talk about the — it's servicing credit debt. That's — that's almost treading water for a lot of families, just servicing and pushing that debt along.
CHAIR BERSTEIN: As long as your income is rising relative to your debt, you can service that debt. And so, that's why the numbers I cited —
Q But that's not getting ahead.
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Well, I think if you want to look at getting ahead — so, there's — there's a couple of parts to this. You want to be able to s- — you're right, you want to be able to service your debt while you're getting ahead. So, that's why, when I cite the fact that wages are up for workers, like over the past year, I think the increa- — well, we'll know — we'll know more on Friday, but over the past year, real wages are up 1.5 percent for middle-wage workers.
If you look at low-wage workers over the course of this recovery — this is an article from the media this week — we saw, I think, growth rates of, you know, 7 percent over this — over this recent period.
So, you can do two things. As long as you keep your debt-service ratio in — in — around historical levels, you can pay off your debt while your paycheck expands. And I think we've seen some of that.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Go ahead.
Q Thanks for doing this, Jared. At the top of your remarks, you — you mentioned, you know, the job numbers come out Friday. You talked about, you know, some of the strikes. Boeing, more specifically, they're still on strike. How concerned are you with what's going on with Boeing? And, you know, is there an urgent need, from your perspective, that workers need to get back? And can you just elaborate a little bit more on maybe how some of the strike impact and even hurricanes could be reflected in the job numbers?
CHAIR BERSTEIN: Okay. Well, starting from the last part of your question, as I said and as outside analysts have been writing this week — and you can find various articles to this effect — the expectation is that the payrolls — the report and payrolls — and the key number there is how much payrolls went up in a given mo- — in — in October. We expect payrolls to be affected by the strikes. That's pretty much baked in. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has told us that there are 41,000-and-change workers who will not be counted on payrolls in October who were there in the previous month, due to the strikes. So, they can record that.
The hurricane is much more uncertain. If you're someone who's not getting paid during what we call the reference week — it's when the survey was fielded — you're not going to be counted in the payroll survey.
Now, I don't want to get into dizzying weeds about this, but the unemployment rate can be different. If you're — if you're on strike or if you're still at work but you haven't been paid, but they call it — you're — you're surveyed in the house- — of the unemployment survey, you will — you will be recorded as — as still having a job.
So, the unemployment rate is expected to be less affected than the payroll number, but the payroll number is — is, as — as I — is, as I mentioned, expected to be affected by these distortions, though there is considerable uncertainty regarding that, particularly around the hurricanes.
In terms of the Boeing strike, look, you know that our administration puts workers at the center of our economic agenda, and the president and the vice president have focused considerable energy on jobs, wages, and on worker bargaining power.
So, I've worked with Joe Biden for many decades, and that has always been at the core of his model. Workers need clout in order to get a fair share of the growth that they're helping to contribute to. In fact, my favorite definition of Bidenomics is that "If you're helping to bake the pie, you ought to get a fair slice." And one of wa- — one of the ways that happens is through bargaining clout, bargaining power, and that's why we've generally been so supportive of unions.
Any specifics about a particular strike, it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Monica, last question.
Q Jared, you mentioned the recent wage growth, but as many Americans are going to be heading to the polls and voting based on what they've experienced and what they are feeling, when do you think people will feel wage growth and their wages starting to outpace inflation?
CHAIR BERSTEIN: Yeah, it's a really important question. It's not an easy one to answer. It has a lot to do with what C- — with — we at CEA have made up something that turns out to be a real thing. We call it your personal price vector.
This is this idea that everybody walks around with a list of prices in their head. What's on that — what's on that list? Gasoline, groceries, sure. But if, like my wife, you're somebody who likes to garden, fertilizer is on that list. And you remember what things cost. You remember that you used to pay $3 for this, and now you're paying $4 for this.
Now, one of the points that I'm making is that as your pay goes up, you know, that $4 becomes something you can afford again. So, here's a calculation that we do that no normal person would do — (laughs) — which is that it says, if you look at how much work — how many hours of work does it take to buy a bag of groceries right now, it's about the same, or even a little lower, than it was before the pandemic, right? Because, yes, grocery prices have gone up, but, especially recently, wages have gone up more — (laughs) — than — than grocery prices.
So, for — for whatever hours of work it took you to buy a bag of groceries before the pandemic, it's about the same, even a little less, right now.
So, why don't people feel better? Because they still remember what things used to cost. They still have that their — their PPV — their PPVs — their personal price vectors have yet to update completely, but they are in that process.
And so, one test of this theory is: Okay, time has to pass. Inflation has to stay low so that prices don't get shocked again. You know, time passes — check, because that's like a physical reality; inflation is — is low — 1.5 percent on a quarterly basis for the PCE last quarter; real pay has to go up; and we have to do all we can to help on the cost-cutting agenda.
Now, if all of that would help — in answer to your question, if all of that was truly helpful, we should see confidence and sentiment indices begin to tick up, starting around now, and that's exactly what we've seen. We're not back to pre-pandemic levels. Our work isn't done, but the trend is our friend; we're moving in the right direction, and we have a strong foundation to build upon, and a strong policy agenda with which to build upon that foundation.
Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Thank you so much, Chair. I appreciate it, Jared. Appreciate it.
CHAIR BERNSTEIN: Thank you.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you for coming.
Okay, let me see if I have anything else — nope. Okay.
Go ahead, Aamer. (Inaudible.)
Q Yeah, can you just address the president's comments yesterday referring to a Trump supporter as "garbage"? And I know he's tried to clarify that he was —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — trying to talk about what the person said. But, one, I guess I'm — I want to know, does he think less of Americans who support Trump than he does of those who do not? And, two, why is he using that kind of rhetoric? How is that presidential?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So — so, a couple of things — couple of things. So, just to clarify, he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, which is why he put out — this is why he wanted to make sure that we put out a statement that clarified what he meant and what he was trying to say. And so, just want to make that very clear for folks who are watching.
And I'll — and I just want to read that out to folks. So, he was — regarding to the comedian, and I quote, "I referred to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump's supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage, which is the only word I can think of to describe it. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable. That's all I meant to say. The comments" — the comments — "at the rally don't reflect who we are as a nation."
And to your question — your other question that you asked, no he does not view Trump supporters or anybody who supports Trump as garbage. That is not what he views.
The president has said this for more than three years now. He has said multiple times that he is a president for all. It doesn't matter if you live in a red state. It doesn't matter if you live in a blue state. He has said this himself. I have said it on his behalf.
He believes that he's a — a president for all, and it doesn't matter who you voted for. It doesn't matter if you voted for him or not. He's a president for all, but hateful rhetoric — hateful rhetoric that he hears — and this is something that we've done many times from here — we will call that out. We will call that out. And that's what the president said.
Q Is he — does he have any regret for not being more — his — his language was not specific. It came out — if you were listening to that video, it —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was in the room. Aamer, I was in the room.
Q I — I'm (inaudible) —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I —
Q — listening on —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I'm just telling you that I was in the room.
Q If you were listen- — but if you were any sort of normal person listening to that video or looking at the clips online, you could come to the conclusion that he was calling, at minimum, this one man "garbage" or not — if not all Trump supporters "garbage."
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well — I —
Q Does he — should he be more —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay —
Q Does he regret not being more precise with this language?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, wait —
Q And does he — does he al- —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) I'm waiting for the question to end, but go —
Q Well, I —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — ahead. Keep going. Keep going.
Q And the second — I apologize. And the —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, no, no. Go ahead.
Q — second part of that is, does he — does he any regret for how this has shadowed Vice President Harris's campaign?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things there, because there's — there's a lot that you laid out.
So, look, the president wanted to clarify because he understood that what he may have said was being — he understood that what he was saying was being taken out of context, so he wanted to be very, very clear about what he was trying to say. And I just read that out mult- — once over. You all have the — have the — have the — the tweet, or, you know, the statement that's on X. If you want to read it right now, feel free to do so.
And he was talking about hateful rhetoric. And we've called out hateful rhetoric from here. We have.
Obviously, this hateful rhetic — rhetoric was about a particular co- — community — a community that — the Puerto Rican community; they are Americans. They — this is somebody — this is a community that he respects, and he wanted to make sure he called that out.
And hateful rhetoric should be called out. It should be.
And — but at the same time, the president is a president for all; he will continue to do so. He will continue to serve for everyone.
I — I want to step back for a second, because I think this is really important. Yesterday, we went to Baltimore, Maryland. He announced a $3 billion project in Baltimore. That $3 billion project is going to help 27 states. Eleven of those states are — are — have Republican governors. This is what this president cares about, making sure that people who are in need, get the need — get — get the assistance that they need. Right? They — we talked about — he talked about port — port infrastructure, and we went to Baltimore. Obviously, we know what happened a couple of months ago with one of the bridges there: $147 million for — for Maryland in — in particular.
But just think about it: 27 states; 11 states are Republican governors.
And this is — we're talking about the Inflation Reduction Act, which only Democrats voted for. Republicans didn't vote for that. Republicans tried to repeal that. Let's not forget what the speaker said yesterday about ACA — wanted to repeal ACA. He wanted to repeal ACA, which would hurt millions of Americans.
And so, that's what the president wants to focus on, which is why he wanted to make sure he clarified what he said.
But if there is hateful rhetoric that is being said about communities, Americans, communities across this country, he's going to speak out about it. It's not the first time that he's done so.
Q And then just briefly —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.
Q — separately, is —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk headed to — back to the Middle East this week to try to revive ceasefire negotiations? And can you tell us anything about Bill Burns' travel as well?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. So, following Israel's response in a self-defense against Iran, senior U.S. officials are following up on a range of matters in the region and with Israeli counterparts.
Bill Burns will be in Cairo on Thursday to engage with Egyptian counterparts on bilateral matters as well as the process to secure the release of hostages.
CENTCOM commander, General Erik Kurilla, is traveling to the region to discuss regional defense and will visit Israel to engage with counterparts and U.S. personnel.
And then you asked me about Bert — excuse me, Brett — and Amos. So, you have two White House officials. They're going to visit Israel on Thursday to engage on a range of issues, including Gaza, Lebanon, hostages, Iran, and border [broader] regional matters as well.
In all of these engagement, you will see that the U.S. will reaffirm its iro- — ironclad commitment to Israel's security, its warning against any further direct military attacks by Iran against Israel, and its support for de-escalation backed by deterrence in the region more broadly. And that's the engagements that you will see from this administration over the next couple of days.
Go ahead, Selina.
Q Thanks, Karine. So, Did President Biden make a mistake in his comments yesterday?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He clarified what he said. It was very clear what he was trying to do. He was wanting to make sure that what he was what — what he said was not taken out of context. And he clarified that.
Q This isn't the first time the White House has had to defend or clarify the president's comments.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It's — nobody — nobody is defending. The president himself — this is the president himself wanted to clarify what he said. He wanted to make sure that it was not taken out of context. These are the president's words. Nobody here is defending. We are laying out what the president said himself, and he wanted to clarify that.
Q So, those comments were made as the vice president was speaking about unity at the Ellipse last night. Did the president speak to the vice president before or after that speech?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I — I think in a — in a gaggle that the vice president did not too long ago, she confirmed that she had a conversation with the — with the president. The president was very proud of the vice president. She gave a historic — a historic speech last night, and he certainly wanted to congratulate her.
Q So, that was after the speech.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: That was after the speech.
Q And did the president make any reference to these remarks or apologize to the vice president?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say is I'm not going to get into private discussions here. That's not something that we do from — from the podium. I'm not going to do that.
But the president and the vice president speak regularly. That is not uncommon. She is the vice president; he is the president. So, obviously, they have direct communications pretty — pretty often.
And he did have a conversation last night because he was proud of her — her historic speech, and he wanted to congratulate her.
And, again, they speak regularly.
Q And did you or anybody else speak to the president last night to seek clarification by what he meant —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, here's —
Q — once realizing it was being taken —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I was — and —
Q — out of context?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I was in the room when he delivered his remarks last night and during the live stream, and what I can say is he himself wanted to make sure that there was clarity in what he was trying to say.
Again, we are talking about hateful rhetoric — a hateful rhetoric that was being said, and the president wanted to be very clear. He feels — he also feels — and we've been doing this; this is nothing new here for the past more than three years — when hateful rhetoric is being said, the president believes it's important to speak to it and call that out.
And that's what the president was referring to: a comedian — a particular comedian from just Saturday night — I know you all covered this — at Madison Square Garden who was spewing hate — who was spewing hate against the Puerto Rican community. And the president felt that he needed to say something.
At the same time, he wanted to make sure that his words were not taken out of context. And so, he — he himself wanted to make sure that a statement was put out to clarify it.
Go ahead.
Q One more on this.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.
Q Was the president reading from a script? It looked like he was reading from notes. Did he — did — so, did — were those comments written out for him in —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I —
Q — some form?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, go ahead. No, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Andrea.
Q No. No, it's okay. You —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no. Fini- — finish. I want you to finish your statement. I'm sorry.
Q I was just — I mean, you know, it would be useful to know whether there was, you know, a prepared remark that he was reading from and, if so, you know, whether that should have been changed or —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So —
Q — or whether he was adlibbing.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple things. I — I'm not going to get into specific here. It's not unusual for a president or the vice president or any elected official to have notes in front of them when they're speaking to a crowd or to a group of people. That is not unusual.
What I can say is the president wanted to make sure that his words were not being taken out of contax [context]. And so, he wanted to clarify, and that's what you heard from the president. He was very aware.
And I would say I think it's really important that you have a president that cares about clarifying what they said, and that's what you see from this president. He took it upon himself to clarify what he said, and I think that that says a lot about who Joe Biden is — that he wanted to make sure it was clear that he was talking about the comedian and their — the hateful rhetoric that was coming from this comedian just a couple of days ago.
Q There have been a lot of comparisons made to the Hillary Clinton remark using the word "deplorables."
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q Has the president indicated to you any concern that this comment — this one comment, that he has clarified now — could have similar reverberations to that previous comment? I mean, he was certainly active in politics then and was — you know, was — was aware of the impact that that had.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I'm not going to go back and litigate 2016. I'm just not going to do that from here.
He was not speaking about Trump supporters. He was not tre- — as a whole, he was not speaking about people who support a different candidate. That is not what he was doing, and he clarified that in his statement last night. That was not his intent. He wanted to be very clear about that, hence, again, why he said he was speaking about comments that were made by the comedian.
And let's not forget — we can't forget what we heard was the demonization of Latinos — that's what we heard — of a community.
By the way, you know — and I know you all know this — Puerto Ricans are Americans.
And he wanted to make sure that, you know, we speak out against hateful rhetoric. It's important to do that. Was he talking about Trump supporters? Absolutely not. As a whole? Absolutely not.
Q I just have one more.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.
Q A foreign policy question.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Sure.
Q So, the president of — who was — who was just here visiting President Biden said tha- — of Cyprus —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Cyprus.
Q — said that he thought that there could be some movement on a Lebanon ceasefire within one to two weeks. He said that he had discussed this matter with — with President Biden.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q I wonder if you can give us an — you know, a — sort of an indication of whether you think that is also true, that there could be a ceasefire in Lebanon within one to two weeks. And if you could just comment on Israel's ban of UNRWA and whether you think that's helpful for the process.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, we're — o- — obviously, we're going to remain committed to reaching a diplomatic resolution here to end the conflict along the blue line, which will allow Israelis and also Lebanese civilians on both sides to — to return to their homes, and this is something that we've been pretty consistent about. And we're going to continue to have, certainly, that commitment to have a dip- — diplomatic resolution to end — to end what we're seeing along the blue line.
Look, you know — and we're — also been very consistent as — at — to not having — negotiating, certainly, in public. That is not something that we're going to do from here. We're going to certainly be optimistic, and we are committed to that. Just not going to go into any — any kind of where we are with those conversations, what's happening. We're not going to, certainly, negotiate out — from here.
As it relates to — I'm assuming you're — you're speaking about the Knesset vote on — on UNRWA.
So, look, certainly, we are deeply troubled by that, by this legislation that could shut down UNRWA operations in the West Bank, Gaza, and also East Jerusalem. So, we urge the government of Israel — we're having this conversation with the government of Israel — to pause implement- — implementing this legislation.
We urge the government of Israel, certainly, to ensure UNRWA can effectively carry out its mission and facilitate humanitarian assistance.
But we also support steps to strengthen UNRWA as well, in part so that UNWRA's impartially [impartiality] and neutrality, including to respond to allegations, as you have all covered, to ties to terrorism. But we are certainly deeply troubled by that, and we're continuing to have conversations with the Israeli government.
Go ahead.
Q Thank you, Karine. First, on the comments last night, was the president aware in the moment, as soon as he had made those comments, that they could potentially be misconstrued and be problematic, or was it only after conversations with aides?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I'm not going to get into — into a process. I think what's important is the president put out a statement and wanted to make sure that we clar- — he clarified himself, clarified what he meant here. And this is something that he wanted to do. And that's what you saw from this president last night. And I think that's important to note.
I would also say, and I've said this already and I'll say it again: From day one, this president has always said that he will be president for — for all Americans. It doesn't matter if you voted for him or not. And that continues to be the case.
He was making a particular point, a specific point, about a comedian and the hateful rhetoric that was heard by all — by all of us on Sunday.
But I'm not going to get into the back-and-forth. I think what's important to note is that the president himself wanted to clarify this.
Q There have been a few times when the president has spoken off the cuff and appeared to be off message or had comments that have needed to be walked back or cleaned up. And I'm wondering, going into this final, very high-stakes stretch of the election, if there's going to be any changes to preparation or format for any of the final events that he's going to be participating in.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the president looks forward to being out there, talking to the American people. You he- — you heard me talk about yesterday and how important that was — $3 billion in port infrastructure funding that's going to make a difference in twenty- — 27 states. Eleven of them are red states. This is what the president cares about: to deliver for all Americans.
And so, that was an event that — that was a great event. We talked about the $147 million that's going to — he talked about this — that's going to go to the port and not just, like, dealing with infrastructure but also creating good-paying jobs — thousands of good-paying jobs.
And so, the president is going to continue to do that. I don't have any changes to speak to from here. And, you know, you saw the president in Pittsburgh just this past weekend as well. And this is more of a campaign — that was a campaign stop, so I'm going to be really mindful. But you saw him talking to laborers and union members, and they were thrilled to see him and very thankful for the work that he has done on behalf of union workers over the past three-plus years.
And so, that's what you're going to continue to see from the president. It doesn't matter if it's — because of the election is a couple of days away. This is what he's going to go do on the next three months. And I think the president enjoys being out there, and that's no- — and nothing is going to stop him from doing that.
Q On foreign policy, just finally. CNN is reporting, according to a high-ranking Iranian source, that Israel's recent attacks on Iran will be met with a "definitive and painful" response that will likely come before the election on Tuesday. What preparations does the U.S. have underway for a —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Here's —
Q — potential response?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — what I'll say. Iran should not respond to Israel's retaliation. They should not. If — if it chooses to do so — if they do, we will support Israel in defending itself. But they should not. They should not respond to Israel's retaliation.
Go ahead, Karen.
Q Thanks. The White House had advised that the president will be heading to Pennsylvania twice at the end of this week — Philadelphia on Friday, Scranton on Saturday. Obviously, a very important battleground state.
First, can you talk about what he's going to be doing there, at both of those stops? And second, is there any thought to not having him out on the campaign trail on a battleground state, given the criticism he's facing for the comments from last night?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as you just stated, it's a campaign event. I'm not going to speak to the —
Q Saturday is.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: On Saturday, yes. So, I'm not going to speak to the details of — of the Scranton visit. I don't have anything else to add beyond what we shared with all of you in the Week Ahead. I don't have any changes. I don't have anything more to — to advise from here.
What I can say is wha- — basically what I kind of said with Kayla in answering her question, which is, the president certainly looks forward to being out there, speaking directly to the American people, talking about what we've been able to do and deliver in the past almost four years of this administration. And that's where — that's what he enjoys, right? He enjoys having that d- — those direct co- — contact, if you will, with — with Americans.
I don't have anything to share beyond what we already announced to all of you and shared with all of you about what the next couple days are going to look like.
Q Can you give us a sense of why those two places? Did he want to go to those — I mean, they're pretty specific locations for him that he has ties to.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I'm going to be super — super careful, super mindful from here. But, as you know, the president is from Scranton. He loves Scranton. We've been there a couple of times. And I think he always looks forward to going back there.
It is a place that he loves, a place where he spent a lot of time in his youth, growing up, and still have close friends and family there. But also, he also believes it's important to continue to be out there to — to talk to folks directly about what we have done.
I — I'm going to be super careful and not speak to anything beyond that. Once we have more details and information, obviously, we'll share that with all of you.
Go ahead, Michael.
Q Thanks, Karine. Where will — (clears throat) — excuse me. Where will the president be on election night?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we'll have more to share. Don't have anything for you at this time. We'll have more to share when we get closer.
Q Okay. And one more thing. Will he attend the inauguration in January, regardless of who wins?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, this president believes in the peaceful transfer of power, and that's what you're going to see this president do — committed to the peaceful transfer of power. It's not about him. It's not about him.
Q So, is that a yes, or —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, he will.
It's not about him. It's about the American people. That's what the American people need to see. Regardless — regardless of who wins, the American pe- — and he understands this — needs to see a peaceful transfer of power, and that's what you're going to see from the president. And that's part of that — right? — attending the inauguration, being there, being part of a — a — what is regularly done, a historic kind of process. He certainly is going to partake in that.
Go ahead, Monica.
Q Karine, just following up on two questions from my colleagues. For the sake of clarity, was the president reading from prepared remarks last night?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the president had certainly — it's not unusual for — for a president, vice president —
Q Sure.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — or any elected officials to have notes on what they are — what they want to say, prepared to say. I'm not going to — I'm just not going to get into specifics here.
What is — I think what's important to note here is the president wanted to clarify what he said. That is what is important. And for a president to do that, I think, is important, and I think that shows the integrity of this president to want to make sure that, "Hey, I want to make really clear I was talking about the comedian and the hateful rhetoric that was coming out of his remarks on — on Sunday."
I'm not going to get into — I'm not going to get into specifics here and — and just leave it as that. I think what's important for the American people to note is that the president wanted to make sure that he clarified his statement and is going to continue to be a president for all. It doesn't matter if you voted for him or not.
Q And then just second, the vice president is facing questions about his —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — comments today. So, does the president regret at all the distraction this is causing from her campaign in these final days?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I- — here's what I'll say: The — yes, the vice president spoke to this, and she said herself that the president clarified these statements. And, look, what — what I will say — and she also said, obviously, and you — you all saw this, that she believes that, you know, it doesn't matter who you vote for, right? She — people should have their ability to — to make their decisions for themselves, which is something that this president also agrees on.
And I'm not going to — you all are covering this election. You all can speak to if this is a distraction or not. What I can speak to is the president wanted to make sure that he clarified these statement — his statement, and he did so.
Q And the vice president did say today she strongly disagrees with anybody who offers criticism of people based on who they vote for and why they vote for them.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Mm-hmm.
Q Does the president view that differently?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, he feels the same way. He feels the same way as what she stated. But that's something that the president has been saying for some time. He has. He has been saying that it doesn't matter if you voted for him or not; he's your president. He's a president for all Americans, whether you're in a red state or a blue state. This is something that the president certainly believes and he has been saying himself. He has said this himself.
And that's why he didn't want what he said to be taken out of context. That's why he wanted to make sure it was clarified because that is indeed what he believes. So, he agrees with the vice president.
Go ahead, Willie.
Q You touched on this just a little bit, about the president agreeing with the vice president. But will the president be a little bit more careful in his upcoming events? I know you can't speak to the campaign events, but in his remarks, what is he going to do differently in terms of what he says to the American people for fear of isolating someone with his comments?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — look, here's the thing. You have a president who wanted to make sure what he said was not taken out of context and took that extra step to clarify. I think that tells you where the president is. He took the extra step to clarify.
And, you know, you don't see that from many elected officials. You certainly didn't see that from the former president. And this president wanted to make sure it was not taken out of contax [context]. And so, he wanted to clarify. I think that tells you everything that you need to know.
Q Just two quick ones —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — if I — if I may. On North Carolina, I wanted to see if there's an update —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — about resources there. Both candidates in North Carolina. I wanted to see what the hurricane response —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — ongoing response is. And on the ballot boxes and the fires that are — ballots. I- — is the White House in contact with local communities about how they can keep their ballots safe, or —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — what's the White House doing there in response?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things there. I do want to speak to North Carolina, and I think that's a — thank you for that question, because I think it's important for folks to — folks to have an update.
So, as you know, the Biden-Harris administration, when it came to dealing with these two historic hurricanes — Hurricane Helene and — and, obviously, Hurricane Milton — we did an — a robust, whole-of-government response, provided the — provided hundreds of millions of dollars in financial assistance to survivors and to substantial debris removal and power restoration. And that is what you saw from this administration.
As it relates to specifics there, this includes over $1.3 billion in assistance for individuals and families to help pay for housing, repairs, personal property replacement, and other recovery efforts; and over $1.5 — $1.1, pardon me, billion in public assistance, including a support local — to support local and state governments as they recover and rebuild.
And specifically, what — what we provided to North Carolina: over $193 million in direct financial assistance. This is for survivors, obviously. And as the president and the vice president have said many times, their administration will be there for the people of — of North Carolina as they continue to rebuild, as they continue to deal with the loss that they've had to deal with from both hurricanes — a historic hurricane.
And, as you know, both — both the president and the vice president have been on the ground, and FEMA continues to assist on the ground.
As it relates to the — the ballot drop box fires, first of all, we want to be very clear about this: It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. Every eligible American has the right — has the right to make their voices heard.
And so, we are committed to making sure that Americans' right to vote is — and — and is — occurs, right? We are committed to that, and we want to make sure that is not undermined.
And so, we're working with state officials providing replacement ballots to those affected and are working to protect against future incidents. That's what state officials are doing.
And FBI certainly is going to investigate these incidents, so I would refer you to them specifically about the incidents.
But we certainly will call that out, and it is unacceptable. Every eligible American has the right to exercise their — certainly their right to vo- — vote and make sure that their voice is heard.
AIDE: Karine, we have time for one more.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.
Go ahead, Gerren.
Q Thanks, Karine. A Supreme Court ruling allowed the state of Virginia to purge 1,600 voters from the registration rolls suspected of being noncitizens. Critics argue that the ruling violates the National Voter Registration Act, which bars systematic changes to voting rolls 90 days before an election. What does the White House make of this ruling?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So look, it's — it's very similar to how I answered Willie's question, but I'll start off with this, saying: It is already illegal. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and it is a federal crime that is punishable by prison and fines.
And again, as I stated to — to your colleague here, every single eligible American has the right to make sure that their voices are heard if they choose so. And so, that is something that we're going to continue to make sure that that happens.
And I'll just leave it as there for now.
Q Another topic.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q The mother of Shanquella Robinson, the 25-year-old North Carolina woman killed in Cabo, Mexico, in 2022, after a physical assault caught on video while vacationing with people she believed to be her friends — her mother filed a wrong- — a wrongful death lawsuit against those six individuals who — and also names the State Department and FBI, accusing the agencies of negligence in their failure to extradite those involved and failure to properly investigate that case. Given that her family did have a meeting here at the White House, I wonder what — the White House has any reaction to that lawsuit?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, I'm going to be mindful and careful here. It's — it's an ongoing case. There's a lawsuit obviously tied into this. So, what I will do is refer you to, certainly, the State Department and just not comment from here.
Q Has the White House been in contact with the Robinson family outside of that one meeting last year?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I would have to con- — connect with my colleagues here. I don't have anything to share beyond that one — one-time connection, but I would have to connect with the — with the team here.
All right. Thanks, everybody. Have a good one.
2:36 P.M. EDT
