James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:35 P.M. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Okay. A couple of items for you at the top.
Obviously, this is a tremendously historic day in the White House and in the country, and this is a fulfillment of a promise the President made to the country. His time on the Judiciary Committee was defining for him and gave him historically exceptional preparation for what we would consider a smooth process characterized by heavy engagement with both parties in the Senate during both the advice and consent phases.
He promised to choose a successor in the mold of Justice Breyer, as Republicans and Democrats called for, and after thorough consideration, as you know, chose Judge Jackson.
The President's outreach — Justice Jackson, I guess we can now call her.
The President's outreach continued at this stage, calling senators in both parties early about his choice. Out of the gate, he proved he had chosen someone in the tradition by immediately getting endorsed by the Fraterni- — Fraternal Order of Police and Judge Thomas Griffith, followed by a procession of leading conservative legal minds and additional law enforcement organizations.
As we've talked about in here a bit, she began her prep work immediately, starting the day after she was announced, and promised to meet with anyone who wanted to and honored it, meeting with 97 senators over the course of her consultations.
She further displayed her work ethic, extraordinary credentials, and character when she testified for over 20 hours and answered the most QFRs of any SCOTUS nominee ever.
We also functioned seamlessly with the Judiciary Committee and leadership, and we were conscientious about being a good resource to Republicans. Senator Jones and the additional staff brought on during the process made invaluable contributions essential to success.
I also wanted to highlight that on UI data that was released today, as you can see in here, the comparison between January of 2021 and March, now that we are in, of 2022.
Over the last four weeks, fewer Americans filed initial claims for unemployment insurance than any time in recorded history. Since President Oba- — Biden took office, our economy has added 7.9 million jobs; that's more jobs created on average per month than any other President in history. And last month, the unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent, down from 6.7 percent when the President took office about 15 months ago.
This historic job growth is a direct result of the American Rescue Plan, which funded our vaccination strategy, reopened schools, and helped grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out.
Last item for you before we get to your questions: Across the country, as we've talked about a bit in here, Republican elected officials are engaging in a disturbing, cynical trend of attacking vulnerable transgender kids for purely partisan, political reasons.
Today in Alabama, instead of focusing on critical kitchen-table issues like the economy, COVID, or addressing the country's mental health crisis, Republican lawmakers are currently debating legislation that, among many things, would target trans youth with tactics that threatens to put pediatricians in prison if they provide medically necessary, lifesaving healthcare for the kids they serve.
Just like the extreme government overreach we've seen in Texas, where politicians have sent state officials into the homes of loving parents to investigate them for abuse — just to harass and intimidate the LGBTQI+ community — today's vote in Alabama will only serve to harm kids.
But Alabama's lawmakers and other legislators who are contemplating these discriminar- — discriminatory bills have been put on notice by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services that laws and policies preventing care that healthcare professionals recommend for transgender minors may violate the Constitution and federal law.
To be clear, every major medical association agrees that gender-affirming healthcare for transgender kids is a best practice and potentially lifesaving.
All of this begs an important question: What are these policies actually trying to solve for? LGBTQI+ people can't be erased or forced back into any closets, and kids across our nation should be allowed to be who they are without the threat that their parents or their doctor could be imprisoned simply for helping them and loving them.
President Biden has committed in both words and actions to fight for all Americans and will not hesitate to hold these states accountable.
I would also note, since I've had a rotation of fabulous colleagues in here today: Today we have Vedant Patel here. You may all know him. Any of you who work on immigration and climate issues know him very well. I often joke with him that we give him the easy assignments. We did not. It's just because he's super talented.
Vedant — I'll say about him: He's a beautiful writer. He's a fast writer. I don't know if that means he could be a wire reporter. I think he has a very promising career in government ahead of him. But I just wanted to highlight Vedant and his amazing contributions and everything he does to help me, help all of us, help the President every day.
With that —
Q Perfect. I've got — I've got three things. Thanks so much. Ukraine's foreign minister at NATO made very clear that his country needs more weapons and needs them fast. I'm wondering if it's time for the U.S. and other allies to not just provide defensive weaponry but actually provide offensive weapons.
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me give you a sense of where we are. As of now, we have provided — committed to providing $1.7 billion of weapons, of security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of this conflict; more than $2 billion since the President took office. There are transfers of systems nearly every single day.
I would note we just announced, two days ago, $100 million in Javelins, which are a critical weapon that the Ukrainians have been using effectively to fight the Russians, push back the Russians, and defend their country.
I would also note that as it relates to the type of systems and materiel we are providing: For every Russian tank in Ukraine, the United States will have or has provided 10 anti-tank systems. If you factor in contributions from allies, we're almost at 90 to 1. That means one tank — Russian tank, 10 anti-tank systems to fight them back. For every Russian armored vehicle in Ukraine, the United States will have provided about three anti-armor systems. If you factor in contributions from allies, it's about 25 to 1.
The way this works — and it's the last thing I'll say and get to your next question — the way that it works is that the Ukrainian leaders request a range of assistance. They often provide us lists. We go through that list; we determine what we can provide. We provide a vast, vast majority of what they're requesting. If we don't have access to it — sometimes it's Russian-made military equipment — we work with our allies and partners to see what they can provide.
And our focus as our — as Department of Defense officials have conveyed on the Hill when they've testified this week, has been providing — providing what they are trained on and what we know is effective in fighting this war. And we've already seen, to date, that the use of this security assistance has been central and essential in effectively fighting the war as they have done.
Go ahead, Mara.
Q Are you saying that that's sufficient, that you feel that you've given them enough? I mean, what do you mean by those metrics?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I provided them because I think it's interesting or compelling —
Q Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: — to understand — right? — the range and the significance and the totality of the type of assistance we've provided.
We have not stopped nor are we stopping providing additional security assistance. We have announcements nearly every couple of days.
I just think that, to me, was interesting and compelling to better understand the significance and the broad scope of the assistance we've provided.
Q But you're saying there'll be no letup in your efforts to provide them with more?
MS. PSAKI: No, I don't think I conveyed that in any — in any way.
Q All right. That's fine.
MS. PSAKI: Yep, go ahead.
Q Just to kind of follow up on that: The Secretary of State yesterday, in a Russian-language Telegram channel, said, quote, "[W]e're looking at other systems — some of them larger, more sophisticated — that may be useful going forward…" Is he talking about the systems that allies might have that we're trying to backfill? What was, for clarity's perspective, was he trying to say there?
MS. PSAKI: Well, partly, yes, because there are systems, of course, we have access to. We have the best military in the world. We have a range of systems we have access to that we have been providing and we will continue to provide.
There are certain systems, as you've noted — the S-300 is one of them, of course — where they have requested. We have to continue to work with allies and partners on what systems and equipment they have access to and they would have the capacity to provide. Sometimes that means backfilling systems. And there is also systems and — weapons systems that they may request that we may not talk about because, for operational reasons and their own process, it wouldn't be to their benefit to do that.
Q So he's potentially talking about U.S. systems that we just aren't necessarily aware of at this point?
MS. PSAKI: He's — he's talking about — we're not going to detail always every type of system or every type of weapon we're going to work with allies to provide or provide. We have provi- — we have detailed it quite extensively from here, but we're not going to detail everything — we haven't — over the course of time for operational purposes. But what he was conveying is that we'll continue to work with our partners and allies in meeting the needs and the requests that the Ukrainians have put forward.
Q Okay. And then, Germany's foreign intelligence service briefed a parliamentary committee over there that it had intercepted radio communications of Russian soldiers talking about killing civilians. Is the U.S. either aware of that intelligence, or does it have any intercepts of its own that show something similar?
MS. PSAKI: I have seen the reports, but I don't have anything more on those reports or the intelligence.
Go ahead.
Q Yes. I guess the President obviously tested negative today. And according to CDC guidelines —
MS. PSAKI: Yesterday.
Q I'm sorry, yesterday.
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
Q Speaker Pelosi was not considered a close contact, but it seems like a very close call. I know you said that he had a second booster and that he's following CDC guidelines. But given the importance of his role and his age, is the White House considering any stricter measures to keep him safe: more mask wearing, fewer big venue events, more outdoor events?
MS. PSAKI: Well, when you say it's a "close call," I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Q Close call in the sense that they were in two events at the White House together; within two days, she tested positive.
MS. PSAKI: Sure, sure. Okay. Well, for clarity purposes, what — the way a "close contact" is defined — it's not arbitrary. It's not something made up by the White House. It's CDC guidelines. And how they define it is being within six feet for a cumulative total of 15 minutes over a 24-hour period. That — they were not. All of their interactions were publicly available; I think you saw them. And that's how that assessment is made.
In terms of additional testing or anything along those lines, those assessments would be made by the President's doctor. He was tested last evening and tested negative.
We have incredibly stringent protocols here at the White House that we keep in place to keep the President safe, to keep everybody safe. Those go over and above CDC guidelines, and that includes ensuring that anyone who is going to be around the President is tested.
Every member of the staff is on a regular testing protocol. If you're going to see him in person, whether you're traveling with him or you're meeting in the Oval Office, you will be tested. If you — we try to do socially distanced meetings when necessary. For those employees who test positive, they are required to isolate, of course, in alignment with CDC guidance, and must test negative before returning to work. That is also a step that goes over and above.
But we are going to continue to follow the protocols. And I would remind you and reiterate that we also put out a plan just a month ago that made clear that while COVID-19 will continue to be with us and we will see cases rise and fall, as we are seeing them rise now — to be expected, given the transmissibility of BA.2 — we can now — we now have steps to go back to many of our normal routines in alignment with what the CDC continues to recommend.
Q And given the fact that there has been this uptick among, you know, people who have been following CDC guidelines, are there plans to revisit those guidelines or edit them in some way, given the uptick?
MS. PSAKI: That would be up to the CDC. But again, I think when they put out these guidelines, they made clear that it was about looking at data on hospitalizations and even deaths. And what we have a plan to address, and I would note — I have it with me, because we really like COVID props this week — right here. We have copies for anyone who would like a copy.
And this is a 100-page preparedness plan that we put out that — meant to protect against and treat COVID, prepare for new variants, prevent shutdowns, vaccinate the world.
We expected there to be ups and downs and increases. And with a transmissible — a variant that's as transmissible as BA.2, that's what we're seeing at this point in time in the White House, in — among the press corps, among the general public.
And the most important message we're sending to the public is that we have steps in place that we can take to continue to address it. And even as we're continuing to fight COVID, we can, for the most part, return to our normal routines.
Q And quickly, on another topic.
MS. PSAKI: Yeah.
Q Congress voted to remove most-favored-nation trade status for Russia and Belarus and ban oil imports. Does President Biden plan to sign —
MS. PSAKI: A hundred to zero. Right?
Q Exactly.
MS. PSAKI: Yes. Yes, this is something the President supports, had called for, and certainly plans to sign it.
Q Back on COVID, you just said that anyone who is around the President is tested. Does that apply just to Executive Office employees, or is that true also of any members of Congress or invited guests who are here at the White House meeting with the President?
MS. PSAKI: If they are individuals who have a meeting with the President. That's what I was referring to: our own protocols.
Now, if you're at an event, obviously there are assessments made on a case by case. But if somebody is going to be in close proximity, standing next to him, sitting next to him on a stage, that would be obviously different than a broad group of attendees.
Q And given, sort of, the uptick in cases that we've seen here at the White House, on the Hill — there seems to be, you know, cases going around within the political world here in Washington — and the fact that sometimes you do go beyond the CDC-recommended guidelines, is there any plan just to test the President daily for the next few days or week or so?
MS. PSAKI: That would be a decision made by his doctor, but that is not deemed to be necessary at this point.
Q And on another topic: A Service agent from the First Lady's detail was placed on administrative leave after they associated with and were provided gifts from two men who were pretending to be Homeland Security Investigations agents. Is the First Lady aware of this? Is the President aware of this? How concerned are they?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have any comment from here. I'd point you to the Secret Service and others investigating.
Q So, just — do you have any further guidance on what these two men were after or who they may have been working with?
