State Department Press Briefing – May 10, 2022
05/10/2022 07:27 PM EDT
Ned Price, Department Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
2:02 p.m. EDT
MR PRICE: Good afternoon. We’ll do something extraordinary today and start on time, and also without a topper. So dangerous as that might be, I’ll turn right to your questions. Daphne.
QUESTION: Ukraine has said it would suspend the flow of gas through a transit point that delivers almost a third of the fuel piped from Russia to Europe through Ukraine. Will the U.S. need to increase LNG exports to Europe given this move, and does it change the timeline at all for more U.S. or EU tightened sanctions on Russian energy?
MR PRICE: Well, it doesn’t change one timeline, and that is the timeline associated with lessening global dependence on Russian oil. And the timeline associated with that is as soon as possible. As you know, the United States, countries around the world, have already taken steps – the United States took steps last month through an executive order – to ban the import of Russian oil, of Russian energy. Other countries have followed suit using their own authorities. Blocs of countries are having these discussions about how best they can do that.
So I think what we’ve heard today only reinforces what we already knew. We knew that there has to be a near-term response to the disruptions in the global energy market that President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has caused. And as you’ve heard from us in recent weeks, we have been in close coordination, in close touch with allies and partners around the world to surge energy supplies, in some cases tapping strategic petroleum reserves – in the case of the United States, tens of millions of barrels from our strategic petroleum reserve; other countries have made similar investments in their own strategic petroleum reserves – to ensure that supplies of energy are where they need to be for countries that need it in this interim period.
And I call it an interim period because our goal over the longer term is to see to it that we take steps to lessen dependence on Russian energy. Part of that is going to be the transition away from fossil fuels towards renewables, towards green technology; that will help with that. But part of that, too, will be finding longer-term sustainable ways to ensure that our partners, especially those partners on the front lines who have found themselves over the course of years or even decades reliant on Russian energy flows, to see to it that they have other options to fulfill their energy needs. So that’s something we’re working on, including in the context of the U.S.-EU energy task force that President Biden established with his European counterpart a number of weeks ago.
Francesco.
QUESTION: I have a quick one on Ukraine. Senators Graham and Blumenthal introduced a resolution today asking the Secretary to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. Can you update us on the process, if there is one, to determine whether Russia will qualify as a state sponsor of terrorism? Is that something you’re —
MR PRICE: Aware of that resolution, aware of Congress’s interest in this matter, and of course of Congress’s broader interest in our approach to Russia and Ukraine. What I can say is that the state sponsor of terrorism statute is a statute, not to be too subtle about it. And that means that it is something – the criteria by which states are designated or not, those are not up to us. Those are up to Congress.
What is up to us is to take a close look at the law, to take a close look at the facts – that is to say, what Russia is doing, whether it’s in Ukraine, whether it’s in countries around the world – to determine whether that fact pattern fits the criteria that is laid out in the statute. So that’s something that we’re always looking at, not only with this authority but with every authority that we have.
The broader point is that we are going to pull every appropriate level – lever, excuse me – we can to apply pressure on the Russian Federation until and unless its brutal invasion of Ukraine, its brutal aggression against Ukraine, comes to a halt. And the fact is that together with dozens of countries across four continents, we have applied our own sanctions, we’ve used international authorities as well, to not only apply sanctions, but also export controls.
And so the practical effect is that much of what various authorities call for have already been put in place, given what we’ve already done vis-à-vis our own authorities and what other countries have done in terms of their authorities. But we’ll continue to watch and to determine whether Russia’s actions in Ukraine merit and qualify for additional authorities. If we feel those authorities are appropriate, we won’t hesitate to apply them.
QUESTION: Does that just mean that at this stage, it doesn’t qualify, it doesn’t meet the criteria?
MR PRICE: We’re always looking at the facts and the law, and we’ll continue to do that.
QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about terrorism designations in general, whether they are FTO designations or state sponsor designations? And will you – are you willing to say what a lot of people say privately, which is it’s just a bit of show, and in terms of the two cases that we’re looking at right now, the IRGC and Russia, that in fact most if not all of what could be done if these designations were, one, kept, or added, would be exactly the same as what you – this administration and previous administrations have already been doing?
MR PRICE: Well, I think your point is well taken, that there are various authorities we can use when it comes to the IRGC, to take that one example. It is an entity that is among the most heavily sanctioned entities on the face of the planet. In addition to the FTO, there are a number of other authorities that are used to constrain and constrict its activities and those of its leadership and its proxies as well. I used this data point the other day.
But of the 107 sanctions the Biden administration has imposed on Iran, 86 of those – some three-quarters – have been applied against the IRGC or its proxies. So the fact is that we do have a number of tools, but whether it’s the SST, whether it’s the FTO designation, both of these things are defined by statute. And —
QUESTION: Well, yeah. Understood. But, I mean, isn’t the administration a little bit frustrated that people seem to be making political points out of this – out of both of these things?
MR PRICE: Matt, we’re cognizant of the town we live in.
QUESTION: And?
MR PRICE: I – we are closely examining the facts and the law with all of these things. That applies equally to the state sponsor of terrorism designation as it does to the FTO.
QUESTION: Well, but for people who have been around for a long time, including those in this building, including the advisor’s office and others, do you think either of these decisions, they go the way that the critics suspect they will? That it won’t make any difference at all?
MR PRICE: I don’t know what the critics – what they expect. What I do know is that we are going to follow the law. We’re going to do what’s in our national security interest when it comes to every authority under the sun and whether the target of those authorities is Iran, Russia, any other state actor, or non-state actor.
But since you have raised Congress, I will walk through this open door and point out the fact that our assistance to Ukraine has been, just as we promised, massive. We have provided $4.5 billion worth of security assistance to Ukraine since the start of this administration, some $3.8 billion worth of security assistance since the invasion began. These are supplies, weapons, that – precisely what Ukraine needs to defend itself. We started doing this well in advance of the Russian invasion. We started doing it last summer. We did it again in December in advance of the invasion, and of course we have announced multiple drawdowns during the course of this invasion. We are now at our ninth presidential drawdown.
The fact, however, is that right now our coffers in terms of drawdown funding, they are dwindling, and after providing $3.8 billion worth of security assistance since the start of the invasion, we now have less than $100 million left. And we will exhaust those funds within the next week.
And so Secretary Blinken, together with Secretary Austin, they have conveyed a very simple message to congressional leadership. The message is: We need your help. We need Congress’s help to see to it that the strategy that President Biden pledged before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the strategy we have pursued in the midst of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the strategy that has proved effective in helping our Ukrainian partners be effective at defending their country, that is a strategy that requires funding and a strategy for which funding will be exhausted in key ways as of next week.
We view the request that is before Congress now, the supplemental budget request, as vital in terms of what these funds will enable us to do, as well as the message they would send in terms of bipartisan support, in terms of the Executive Branch, the Hill, Americans of all stripes, for the people of Ukraine who are waging this fight to preserve their freedom, to preserve their democracy, and to preserve their country.
This additional assistance we’ve requested, the brunt of our supplemental emergency request was in fact for security assistance, precisely what our Ukrainian partners need to defend themselves. That includes artillery, armored vehicles, advanced air defense systems, all for Ukraine. This funding will also go beyond the security realm. It will help Ukraine keep schools open. It will help replenish the – and stockpile in support of U.S. troops on NATO territory. It will help our Ukrainian partners, and also our NATO Allies, do precisely what we feel it is imperative that they be positioned to do at this moment.
Nazira.
QUESTION: I don’t remember asking about the assistance, but thank you for the four-minute exposition.
MR PRICE: Before you arrived, and I will point out that you arrived late, for the cameras —
QUESTION: I did.
MR PRICE: — I said there would be no topper, so I wanted to make up for that.
QUESTION: Fair enough.
MR PRICE: Yes. Nazira.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Price. First of all, thank you very much for yesterday’s – your answer. Afghan women, they are so happy. But they still ask me and ask you that what option United States will bring to Taliban if they didn’t fix themself about women’s job. This is regular job that every Afghan do it, we don’t have any problem, but like that, it’s unacceptable for Afghan women. And also Afghan people ask, based off your opinion: Why United States failed to fix Afghanistan during this 20 years? Thank you, sir.
MR PRICE: Thank you. So let me start by following up on the conversation we had yesterday about some of the very disturbing, very concerning edicts we’ve heard from the Taliban. Of course, what we’ve heard in recent days regarding the requirement for women’s attire, what we’ve heard about the restrictions on girls attending secondary schools, and other steps – all of these have been deeply concerning. And it’s not only concerning to us; in some ways, much more importantly, it is much more important that it is deeply concerning to Afghans across their country, across Afghanistan. They have voiced their opposition to this edict that proposes severe limitations on half of Afghanistan’s population, and that effectively limits and constricts the ability of half of Afghanistan’s population to participate fully in Afghan society.
So combined with the continuing ban on girls’ secondary education, restrictions on freedom of movement and targeting of peaceful protesters, the Taliban’s policies towards women are an affront to human rights and they will continue to impair their – the Taliban’s relations with the international community, including with the United States. We are discussing these developments with our partners around the world. The legitimacy and support the Taliban seeks from the international community, they know that it depends on their conduct, including and centrally their protection on the rights of women and girls.
These are commitments that the Taliban has made privately. These are commitments, again, much more importantly, that they have made publicly to their own people, and these are the commitments on which we are going to base and we are going to judge any future relationship that we will have with the Taliban. And we know that other countries feel similarly. Other countries with whom we’ve worked closely on Afghanistan since August of last year and well before August of last year do feel similarly.
In the interim, we’ve paused nearly all senior-level engagement with the Taliban in response to the Taliban’s decision in March to prevent girls from attending secondary education. We do remain concerned about these other restrictions that we talked about. We believe, first and foremost, that the Taliban should respond to the Afghan people whose rights the Taliban have pledged, once again, publicly to respect. We have heard that very message from our Afghan partners in recent days. Tom West, our special representative for Afghanistan; Rina Amiri, our special representative for Afghan – for women and girls; Ian McCary, our representative who is now based on Doha, have heard that message from Afghan interlocutors in recent days.
Our Afghan partners tell us that they have seen a disturbing pattern of restrictions on their rights that doesn’t reflect the cultural diversity or their hopes for Afghanistan’s future. It also doesn’t reflect what they heard, what the world heard from the Taliban. This, of course, brings back painful memories of the Taliban from the 1990s. We remain, as I said before, in close communication with our allies and partners regarding our shared concern with what we’ve seen. And again, the Taliban’s responsiveness to the demands of the Afghan people and to the expectations of the international community will define not only our relationship with the Taliban, but the world’s relationship with the Taliban. We know that we cannot have a normal relationship with the Taliban until they respect fully the rights of all of the people of Afghanistan.
Yes.
QUESTION: Hold on. So what are you going to do? Can I ask – re-ask my question from yesterday? So what are you going to do? I don’t understand. I mean, I saw that some people wrote, oh, U.S. says it’s going to take measures to – if the Taliban doesn’t reverse these decisions, but what measures have you taken or are you going to take? And you haven’t taken any, even though they have done these offensive things that you say going back more than a month now. So what exactly are you going to do and why should anyone believe you when you say we’re going to punish the Taliban or we’re going to take steps to make our disapproval clear?
MR PRICE: First, Matt, we have led the world, as you know, in providing humanitarian relief and humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: You have, but you also led the world in withdrawing —
MR PRICE: So I think our credibility when it comes to —
QUESTION: — from Afghanistan and allowing the Taliban to take control then, right?
MR PRICE: — when it comes to the concern of – when it comes to the humanitarian concerns of the Afghan people, I think we have established our leadership on that.
QUESTION: Did the United States lead the world in withdrawing from Afghanistan and allowing the Taliban to take control again?
MR PRICE: Matt —
QUESTION: Yes or no? Yes, right? I mean, you can’t deny that, can you?
MR PRICE: I would absolutely reject the premise of the question that the United States allowed the Taliban to take the capital. And Matt, we can relitigate questions that have been litigated for the past 20 years about an investment that we have made in a country, including with treasure and, more importantly, bloodshed on the part of this country and the assessment of this President that the presence of some 2,500 troops who would once again be involved in a civil war, who would be targeted, who would have a target on their back not only by the Taliban but also by elements like ISIS-K, a 2,500-strong contingent that would not – in the end – would have been able to prevent the Taliban or any larger force from coming to power.
So you can argue with the decision that the President made to withdraw militarily from Afghanistan. We are confident in that decision. We know what’s in our national interest. We also know what we can accomplish without having a contingent of military – a military deployment on foreign soil. And that’s what we’re trying to do with our humanitarian assistance. The humanitarian assistance that we have provided to the people of Afghanistan since August of last year has led the world, just as our provision of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan prior to August of last year has led the world.
QUESTION: But this administration has always – has also said that human rights is its number one or one of its top priorities in terms of foreign policy, and —
MR PRICE: Central to our foreign policy.
QUESTION: Exactly. It doesn’t seem to be so central here.
MR PRICE: It is central —
QUESTION: Other than you —
MR PRICE: It is – it is —
QUESTION: — continuing to make statements and that —
MR PRICE: Matt, but you seem to be accusing us of what the Taliban is doing to the people of Afghanistan, and —
QUESTION: No, no, I’m not accusing anyone of anything. I’m asking you what you’re doing to —
MR PRICE: And I am telling you – I am telling you we are doing —
QUESTION: — prevent this or to show your displeasure other than coming out with —
QUESTION: Saying it.
QUESTION: — saying it, writing a nasty letter.
MR PRICE: I can assure you we are doing more than saying it. We are —
QUESTION: Okay. There’s been a lot of talk about reopening the embassy in Kyiv. Is there any discussion about going – sending people back to Kabul?
MR PRICE: I am not aware of any discussion right now about reopening the embassy in Kabul.
QUESTION: Okay. Is it your – is it your belief, though, that Kabul is a war zone in the same way that Kyiv —
MR PRICE: There – there are a couple elements we look at. Safety and security is always at the top of that list. We also look at the propriety of what is appropriate in terms of diplomatic representation, whether it’s in Afghanistan, whether it’s —
QUESTION: Okay. So one of the things – are you saying that one of the things you are doing to show your displeasure with the Taliban is not reopening the embassy?
MR PRICE: What I’m saying is that we are not in a position to reopen the embassy. There are a number of factors that go into that. Safety and security is, of course, one, but also we take a look at the propriety of diplomatic representation around the world.
Our point is that we will judge the Taliban and any future relationship we might one day have with the Taliban based on their conduct, based on their willingness to live up to the public commitments they’ve made to the world. First and foremost is human rights, protecting the rights of the Afghan people, including its women, its girls, its minorities; living up to its counterterrorism commitments; living up to the fact that no entity should be holding an American hostage. We’ve discussed, of course, the case of Mark Frerichs. We’ll continue to work to secure his freedom. There are a number of elements that go into our – any relationship we might one day have with the Taliban. But I can assure you that human rights is central to that list.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can we move to U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit?
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. So how – on U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit, especially on Myanmar or Burma, how does the United States plan to work with ASEAN to hold the military junta further accountable for the coup and the violence afterwards?
MR PRICE: Well, we support ASEAN’s decision to invite nonpolitical representatives from Burma to high-level ASEAN events absent progress on the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus that was put forward. We will follow ASEAN’s precedent for the upcoming U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit, and we’re going to continue to follow that precedent because the regime has demonstrably failed to make progress on ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus and it continues to escalate its violence, its repression against the people of Burma.
We continue to support in the meantime ASEAN’s efforts to press the regime to urgently and to fully implement the Five-Point Consensus and including an immediate and meaningful visit by the ASEAN special envoy and facilitation of his engagement with all stakeholders, including representatives of the pro-democracy movement. Our partnership with ASEAN is central to returning Burma back to the path of democracy. I certainly expect it will be a topic of discussion as ASEAN leaders descend on Washington, descend on this building later this week, and we reaffirm our commitment to the Burmese people and we will continue to promote a just and meaningful resolution to the crisis in Burma to help return Burma to that democratic path.
QUESTION: Are more U.S. sanctions against the junta on the table?
MR PRICE: We will always look for ways to promote additional accountability for the military coup, for the related violence, for the repression, for the human rights abuses that have followed in the wake of the coup. As you know, we don’t preview specific sanctions or specific steps, but we’re always looking for ways to hold accountable those responsible.
QUESTION: If I may —
QUESTION: Just speaking of upcoming regional summits to be held in the United States – do you know where I’m going here?
MR PRICE: You could be speaking of the COVID —
QUESTION: No, no, I would be speaking of the Summit of the Americas.
MR PRICE: You could be speaking of Summit of the Americas.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. Do you have anything to say about the threats or – or if “threats” is the right word – but suggestions that some countries might not show up because the Cubans, the Nicaraguans, and others are not going to be there?
MR PRICE: I don’t have anything to say right now on that. Of course, we will have more to say as the summit gets closer. What – this will be an opportunity for countries throughout the hemisphere to come together to speak to our shared values, the shared interests that unite us. Of course, the White House, as the host of the 9th summit, will determine which countries to invite. The White House has not issued official invites to the summit at this time, but I expect those will go out soon.
QUESTION: Well, when you say “countries throughout the hemisphere,” does that mean all countries, or could some be excluded?
MR PRICE: That is a question that —
QUESTION: Those who do not share your values.
MR PRICE: The invitations are up to the White House, and so we’ll have more to say once invitations are extended.
QUESTION: Ned, can I please also ask who will represent Burma on Friday’s special summit? I’m asking because United States sent out an event invitation.
MR PRICE: Sorry, you’re asking because —
QUESTION: Who will represent Burma in the special summit? Because U.S. sent out an invitation.
MR PRICE: We’ll have – and I’m sure you will see more on that in the coming days.
Yes.
QUESTION: Is Secretary attending in person or in —
MR PRICE: He will. He will. That’s the plan.
Yes.
QUESTION: Going back to the security assistance for Ukraine, the President, of course, is meeting with the Italian prime minister. There’s been concerns expressed in that country, other allies, about the amount of weapons flowing into Ukraine. Does the administration see a limit, especially when it comes to lethal aid?
MR PRICE: We have made clear and the President made clear before the invasion – Secretary Blinken and others have also been speaking to this starting before the invasion but certainly during the invasion – that we would do three things in response to a Russian – renewed Russian invasion against Ukraine. We would provide Ukraine with the security assistance it needs to defend itself, the weapons that it would require to defend Ukrainian freedom, Ukrainian democracy, Ukrainian independence. Second, we would fortify NATO. We would see to it that our Allies, especially our Allies on the eastern flank, had what they needed to deter and potentially even respond to Russian aggression. And third, we made clear that we would put an unprecedented amount of pressure on the Kremlin through financial sanctions, through export control measures, through tools that we would enact with partners and allies around the world.
We have made good on all three of those steps. We will continue to provide Ukraine with what it needs to defend itself. This is about self-defense. It is about preserving what is important to the Ukrainian people and what is in turn important to us, and that is Ukraine’s freedom, its democracy, and its independence.
Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV Pakistan. Secretary Blinken called youngest foreign minister of Pakistan, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and invited him to attend a food security summit. So what were the points of discussion during the talk? And are we expecting any one-to-one meeting between Secretary Blinken and Bhutto?
MR PRICE: I don’t have any bilateral meetings to preview during the – next week’s food security gathering in New York. What I can say is that Secretary Blinken did have an opportunity to speak with his new Pakistani counterpart, Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, last week – May 6th, I believe it was. They had an opportunity to reflect on the 75th anniversary of U.S.-Pakistani relations, to talk about how we can strengthen that cooperation going forward. It is a broad-based bilateral relationship. The Secretary underscored the resolute U.S.-Pakistan commitment to Afghan stability and to combating terrorism as well. They also discussed ongoing engagement when it comes to our economic ties, trade and investment, climate, energy, health, and education. So it was a wide-ranging conversation, as these introductory conversations oftentimes are, and I expect before long they will have an opportunity to follow up on that.
QUESTION: Sir, former Prime Minister Imran Khan is still blaming U.S. efforts from – for his ouster from prime minister office and leading an anti-American campaign. So do you think that his anti-American campaign creating fractures among the structure of the diplomatic relation between Pakistan and U.S. or – or it doesn’t matter?
MR PRICE: We are not going to let propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation – lies – get in the way of any bilateral relationship we have, including with the bilateral relationship we have with Pakistan, one we value.
QUESTION: ISI’s chief is here in Washington, D.C. Is there any meeting with Secretary Blinken or any other State Department officials?
MR PRICE: I would refer you to Pakistani authorities to comment on his schedule. I’m not aware of any meeting with Secretary Blinken.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PRICE: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. I have a question about Taiwan. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson criticized the State Department has changed the explanation on Taiwan, wording related to Taiwan on the website. So could you help us understand the significance of changing of the words? And were there any change on legal status of Taiwan or U.S.-Taiwan Relations Act?
MR PRICE: Well, there’s been no change in our policy. All we have done is update a fact sheet, and that’s something that we routinely do with our relationships around the world. When it comes to Taiwan, our policy remains guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiques and Six Assurances, as that very fact sheet notes. We regularly do updates on our fact sheets. Our fact sheets reflect, in the case of Taiwan, our rock-solid, unofficial relationship with Taiwan. And we call upon the PRC to behave responsibly and to not manufacture pretenses to increase pressure on Taiwan.
Yes.
QUESTION: Is it oxymoron to say Taiwan is part of China if the United States has to switch diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979?
MR PRICE: I didn’t catch the first part of your question.
QUESTION: Is it oxymoron to say Taiwan is part of China if the United States had to switch diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979?
MR PRICE: We operate under the auspices of our “one China” policy.
Yes.
QUESTION: So can I just make sure I understand this?
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: So there is absolutely no change in policy towards Taiwan and China based on – so why – why was it updated? Why did it change the language?
MR PRICE: Matt, you know, as probably better than most —
QUESTION: I do.
MR PRICE: — that we —
QUESTION: I know very well, but you know what? I also know that anything having to do with Taiwan is anathema to – any change, even if it’s a comma in a sentence, is going to get Beijing’s attention —
MR PRICE: Well —
QUESTION: — and they’re going to be unhappy about it. So why now? Why was the decision made to change the fact sheet? And if there’s no change, then why change the fact sheet?
MR PRICE: The fact sheet had not been updated in several years. You know that our fact sheets are regularly updated. I think we care most about ensuring that our relationships around the world are reflected accurately in our fact sheets. I don’t think we’re as concerned as to what other countries might —
QUESTION: Okay. Well, as you —
MR PRICE: — latch onto in an effort to create a pretense.
QUESTION: As you know and as you guys had previewed, the Secretary was supposed to give a speech this week about U.S. China policy. And of course, he had to postpone it because of his COVID diagnosis. Was this fact sheet updated in anticipation, or was it mistakenly updated – the —
MR PRICE: No, it wasn’t a mistake. We —
QUESTION: That it was going to be – yeah, but was it going to be updated in conjunction with the speech that he was going to —
MR PRICE: This was not a policy rollout. This – believe me or not, this was really just a technical update to a fact sheet. Our policy has not changed.
QUESTION: Okay, but the language in it has changed, correct?
MR PRICE: The substance has not changed; the policy has not changed.
QUESTION: The language in it has changed, and we all know that language means things, that words mean things, right? So there was – so essentially you’re saying there was no reason at all – the previous language could have stood and it would still be viable, still be —
MR PRICE: I invite you – I invite you, rather than just say words have changed, to offer examples of —
QUESTION: Well, I looked at the two side by side.
MR PRICE: — of what might be different. And you will find that our underlying policy has not changed.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR PRICE: The fact sheet makes very clear that our “one China” policy has not changed. It remains guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances.
Yes.
QUESTION: Ned, on Russia-Ukraine, let me start with the Secretary’s statement on cyber activity. Can you tell us more about your findings? Any, let’s say, indication to Russia’s increased capabilities that would tell other countries, like immediate neighbors, that they are much more vulnerable than they used to be? If you talk to anyone in Georgia, Estonia, they will tell you, “We told you so years ago. You never listened to us.” But what does it tell you about Russia’s capabilities right now?
And also, secondly, isn’t – I think the Secretary mentions new mechanisms to help Ukraine to detect and also to protect from Russian cyber attacks. Any additional details about that?
MR PRICE: Sure. So on your second question first – and I’ll get to today’s announcement –but we have worked very closely with our Ukrainian partners in recent years, including in the months preceding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to bolster their cyber capabilities. And so when we talk about some of the attacks that took place against Ukrainian systems, including these DDoS attacks that took place in the days and weeks prior to Russia’s invasion, we’ve made the point – and our Ukrainian partners, more importantly, have made the point – that their systems were back up, fully running, fully operational, in many cases within hours. And that is a testament to Ukraine’s capabilities in the cyber realm. It’s a testament to its ability – to its cyber resilience, to its ability to weather such operations. And we have been quite instrumental in helping Ukraine get to that point.
Now, what we said today, and we did this in tandem with allies and partners in Europe and – in Europe, is to publicly share our assessment that Russia launched cyber attacks in late February against commercial satellite communications networks in an effort to disrupt Ukrainian command and control during the invasion, and that those efforts did have spillover effects into other European countries. The activity disabled very-small-aperture terminals, or VSATs, in Ukraine and across Europe. This includes tens of thousands of terminals outside of Ukraine that, among other things, support wind turbines and provide internet services to private citizens, essentially serving as a link between satellites in the sky and systems on the ground.
We and our partners are taking steps to help defend against Russia’s irresponsible actions. We’ve identified new mechanisms to help Ukraine identify cyber threats and recover from cyber incidents, precisely what I was referring to a moment ago. We’ve also enhanced our support for Ukraine’s digital connectivity, including by providing satellite phones and data terminals to Ukrainian Government officials and critical infrastructure operators.
We are – we praise Ukraine’s efforts, both in and out of government, to guard against and help their country recover from malicious cyber activity, even as their country is under physical attack. And the way that Ukraine was able to weather and to be resilient against and to bounce back from these malicious cyber attacks, it was a testament of the ability of Ukraine’s cyber defenders.
QUESTION: And one more question. Let me press you on the SST, if you don’t mind. I think you understand why we are asking about Russia’s designation, because another country today recognized Russia as a terrorist state. How far are we from the SST designation? Is it about days? A month? You mentioned other countries. You mentioned parliamentarian as a process. Are you expecting a message or any appeal from the Hill, or what is the process that we’re missing here? Are we missing a fact? Cuba last year was designated. At least is – how close is Russia to that list based on its actions, current actions, in Ukraine?
MR PRICE: Well, whether it’s this authority or any other authority, we don’t detail our internal deliberations. But what I can tell you is that for every authority that’s available to us, we look at the law – in this case it’s a law that determines the criteria for designating a state sponsor of terrorism – and we look at the facts. And so we are looking at both. And when it comes to the facts, we are closely looking at what Russia is doing, what Russia has done, to the people of Ukraine to determine which policy tools are most appropriate and responsive to those actions, but again noting that we have already placed enormous economic and financial pressure on Moscow. It is not just the United States that has done this, but it is countries around the world, dozens of countries across four continents, that have done so as well.
But if there is a tool that is appropriate, as defined in this case or any other case by the law, and that would be effective, again, we will not hesitate to use it.
Yes.
QUESTION: Along that release of the information on the cyber attacks, now, what – can you talk about the timing of that? Why was that done now? And also, we know some of those attacks are ongoing. Is there a concern that that spillover effect could be felt, again, in Europe or other places?
MR PRICE: Well, these things do take time. What I can say is that we’ve worked closely with Ukraine, with NATO, with other European partners and other parties, since well before Russia’s invasion to understand the extent and the impact of Russia’s malicious cyber activity against Ukraine. And over time, we’ve sought out ways to meet Ukraine’s need for cyber security and connectivity support, and we’ll continue to augment that support.
As I said, in the leadup to the invasion, there were a spate of attacks, attacks from which Ukraine was able to bounce back quickly. An element of that was the training, was the support that the United States Government had provided to our Ukrainian partners well before the invasion, knowing that Ukraine has been a target of malicious cyber activity, including from the Russian Federation, for at least the better part of a decade.
Any time we attribute a cyber activity such as this one, we do so with an eye to protecting sources and methods. We do so with an eye to the implications. But in this case, we’re able to attribute it publicly, having gone through a process, having consulted closely with our Ukrainian partners, with our NATO Allies, with other European partners and others.
QUESTION: One more on holding Russia accountable, if you don’t mind?
MR PRICE: Let me move around just a little bit. Daphne.
QUESTION: I was going to switch to the Philippines, if that’s okay.
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: How do you expect Marcos’s presidency will have an impact on relations with the U.S. and American efforts to curb Chinese influence in the region? And then I have a question on Sudan as well, if that’s okay.
MR PRICE: Well, your question jumps ahead just a little bit. We’re not quite there. We’re monitoring the election results, and we look forward to renewing our special partnership and to working with the next administration on key human rights and regional priorities. As I said, we look forward to working with the president-elect, once that person is officially named, to strengthen the enduring alliance between the United States and the Philippines. It’s an enduring alliance that is rooted in a long and deeply interwoven history, shared democratic values and interests, and strong people-to-people ties between our countries as friends, as partners, as allies.
We’ll continue to collaborate closely to advance a free and open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient Indo-Pacific region. We’ll also continue, as I said before, to promote respect for human rights and the rule of law, which is fundamental to U.S. relations with the Philippines and in other bilateral contexts as well. And we’re very pleased to welcome Secretary of Foreign Affairs Locsin to Washington this week for the U.S.-ASEAN summit.
QUESTION: And then —
QUESTION: Well, wait. Before you go to Sudan, all signs point to the conclusion that Marcos has won. So do you have any concerns about Bongbong Marcos being the new president of the Philippines?
MR PRICE: What I can say from a technical standpoint is that we understand the casting and counting of votes to have been conducted in line with international standards and without significant incident. Again, the counting is still underway. It is not for us to declare a winner. We’ll wait for the Philippines election authorities to do that.
QUESTION: Well, I’m not asking you to declare a winner. I’m just asking you if you have any particular concerns about Marcos’s son becoming the next president.
MR PRICE: We —
QUESTION: You certainly had concerns about Duterte.
MR PRICE: We look forward to working with the president-elect on the shared values and the shared interests that have united our countries across generations.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: The State Department released a statement last night supporting the tripartite political process in Sudan, but the UNITAMS talks that were supposed to kick off today did not. Is this something the U.S. is concerned about? And what makes you confident this process, which is facing criticism and suspicion from parties in the country, is the right path? And then is there any progress being made on holding security forces accountable for violence against demonstrators?
MR PRICE: So we did release a statement last night. We released that statement to underscore our view that the UNITAMS-African Union-IGAD process is the best way to facilitate an inclusive path forward on Sudan’s transition to democracy. Any deviation from that process would undo months of hard work with grassroots civilian activists and human rights defenders geared towards obtaining a broadly acceptable agreement. We do condemn violence against and unjust detentions of peaceful protesters, and we call for those responsible to be held accountable. We likewise condemn undue restrictions on local and international press in Sudan.
We are prepared to levy consequences on those who impede or otherwise spoil Sudan’s transition to democracy. We won’t resume currently paused assistance to the Sudanese Government until a credible civilian government is in place. We will, however, continue to support the Sudanese people, including through humanitarian assistance and support for civil society, which has continued uninterrupted since the takeover.
Francesco.
QUESTION: On Sri Lanka, do you have anything new, any update since yesterday, since the situation has further deteriorated and the sight – sight on view order – to shoot sight —
MR PRICE: Well, we’re concerned by the deployment of the military. We underscore, we stress that peaceful protesters should never be subject to violence or intimidation, whether that’s on the part of a military force or civilian unit.
More broadly, we’re deeply concerned by reports of escalating violence in Sri Lanka over the past few days. We condemn, as I said before, violence against peaceful protesters. We call for a full investigation, arrests, and prosecution of anyone instigating and involved in acts of violence. We are, as I said before, also closely monitoring the deployment of troops, something that is of concern to us, and we’re also closely following political developments and the situation on the ground in Sri Lanka after the resignation of the prime minister.
We urge the government and political leaders to work quickly to ensure public safety and work together to identify and implement solutions to achieve long-term economic and political stability in Sri Lanka. The government must address the Sri Lankan people’s discontent over the economic crisis, including power, food, and medicine shortages, as well as their concerns about the political future of their country.
QUESTION: So in other words, the answer was no, you didn’t have anything to add from what you said yesterday, but you decided to go and repeat it.
MR PRICE: He asked about the deployment of military forces.
QUESTION: You talked about that yesterday, though – (laughter) —
MR PRICE: Nazira.
QUESTION: Yes. The other question that – as you know already, (inaudible) war started in Afghanistan as they protect it. And Ahmad Massoud, Ahmad Shah Massoud’s son, make a group, and they started some activity. On the other side, some expert – the United States, Australia, Canada – they get together and make a group to fight against the Taliban, and Afghan people sacrificed in this way. Does United States support some of them, either Ahmad Massoud group or some other expert, that they try to do something against Taliban?
MR PRICE: We believe the best way to protect and to promote the human rights of all Afghans, including Afghanistan’s women and girls, is through dialogue, inclusive dialogue. So we have continued to press the Taliban to take part in a meaningful, inclusive dialogue representative of all of Afghan society, including minorities, women, and girls.
QUESTION: Sir, one of my colleagues sent me a question, if you would like to respond. Sir, she says that U.S. and Pakistan have always had a good education exchange relationship that opens doors to sharing ideas, best practices, innovation, and much more. Do you foresee continuation of such initiatives and efforts to expand relations with Pakistan and the people of Pakistan?
MR PRICE: I absolutely do. Our educational exchange program, whether it’s with Pakistan, whether it’s with any other country, it’s a core element of our people-to-people ties. We’ve been fortunate to have Pakistanis studying here in this country. We have American students who’ve had the opportunity to study in Pakistan. Those types of exchanges are always helpful, are always valuable as we seek to understand our partners and, as Americans, seek to better understand the world, and as we have other countries better understand America.
Nike, last question.
QUESTION: Yes. Can I ask about South Korea? South Korea’s new president officially takes office today. Do you have anything on South Korea’s offer to North Korea’s – to improve North Korea’s economy if it ends its nuclear weapons? Thanks.
MR PRICE: Well, let me start by saying that we do congratulate President Yoon Suk-yeol on his inauguration. The United States-ROK alliance, rooted in the close friendship of our people, is the linchpin for peace, security, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. We have been and we will continue to coordinate closely with the ROK to address the threat posed by the DPRK’s unlawful WMD programs, its ballistic missile program as well, and to advance our shared objective on the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. This is, in fact, an objective that we share. It’s an objective we shared with the last ROK Government. It’s an objective we share with this ROK Government, and I know that we look forward to the opportunities ahead – over the phone, in person – including when the President travels to the ROK in just a matter of days to continue these discussions with the new ROK administration on how we can advance and promote that goal.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. also assess North Korea will conduct a nuclear test before – sometime before President Biden’s visit to Seoul? I’m asking because it’s a assessment by South Korea’s intelligence chief.
MR PRICE: I wouldn’t want to put a specific timeframe on it, but we have been warning for some time. We have been making public our concern that the DPRK could undertake additional provocations. We have seen three ICBM tests. We’ve seen additional ballistic missile tests, and we’ve spoken of our concern that the DPRK may mount another nuclear test in the near term.
Thank you all very much. Thanks.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:50 p.m.)

The Philippine Presidential Election
05/11/2022 01:53 PM EDT
Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State
On behalf of the United States, I congratulate President-elect Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on his election as the Philippines’ next president.  We look forward to working with President-elect Marcos to strengthen the enduring alliance between the United States and the Philippines.  Our special partnership is rooted in a long and deeply interwoven history, shared values and interests, and strong people-to-people ties.  As friends, partners, and allies, we will continue to collaborate closely with the Philippines to promote respect for human rights and to advance a free and open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient Indo-Pacific region.
We commend the millions of Filipino voters who cast their ballots in this election, and we look forward to the official conclusion of the electoral process for the many offices in the national elections.

GALLUP:

Few Say Quality, Affordable U.S. Higher Ed Widely Available

44% of U.S. adults without a two- or four-year degree believe such a degree is more important to a successful career than it was 20 years ago, but are skeptical about the widespread availability of affordable, quality higher education.

Department Press Briefing – May 2, 2022

05/02/2022 07:36 PM EDT

Ned Price, State Dept. Department Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
2:32 p.m. EDT

MR PRICE: Good afternoon, everyone. Happy Monday. As you can see, we have a special guest with us today. It’s always a good day when we have someone here at the podium to – someone else here at the podium to answer your questions. We have with us Dr. Michael Carpenter. He is our ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He will provide some opening remarks and then take a few of your questions, and then we’ll continue on with the press briefing.
QUESTION: Thank you.
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Great. Thank you so much, Ned, and good to be with you all. I wanted to spend a little bit of time today talking about some indications we have concerning Russia’s political intentions in Ukraine, particularly in the south and east.
First I want to start out by saying just how inspired we all are by the courage of the Ukrainian people in defending their homes, their neighborhoods, their cities, and indeed their country. We have seen they have repelled attacks, particularly on the northern reached of Kyiv, and pushed Russian troops back across the border. And their heroism at battle has been commendable.
And indeed, they have won the battle of Kyiv and Russia has lost, but that of course has come at a huge cost in terms of both human – the human toll – and also the humanitarian toll. What we are seeing right now is that Russia’s forces are regrouping and refocusing their effort on Ukraine’s south and east, and as we look at Russian planning it is also being refocused on Ukraine’s south and east.
And I want to share with you all something that I spoke about at the OSCE’s Permanent Council recently, which is that we have information that Russia’s initial planning including – included a plan for a forced capitulation of Ukraine’s democratically elected government as well as dissolution of local government structures. And that plan, to the best of our information, included plans not just for a new government in Ukraine but also for a new constitution.
So what I would say is that although Ukraine won the battle of Kyiv, we’re now seeing that Russia’s playbook is being tailored for what it plans to do in the south and east of Ukraine. And so I would highlight for you reports that we have seen of abductions of mayors and other local officials. We have received reports of enforced disappearances of a range of folks to include school directors, journalists, local activists, municipal officials. There have been reports of plans to impose a Russian school curriculum in the south and east. I think you’ve probably seen reports that Russia plans to force the local population to use the ruble. More recently, there have been reports as well that Russian forces have cut off internet and some cellular phone access in these regions in order to disable the flow of reliable information. And then finally, there is this phenomenon of the replacement of local municipal governments with these groups that are loyal to Moscow.
And in addition to this – and this is something that I’d like to highlight – we believe that the Kremlin may try to hold sham referenda to try to add a veneer of democratic or electoral legitimacy. And this is straight out of the Kremlin’s playbook. They organized these sham referenda, as you all know, in Crimea, in Luhansk, in Donetsk, and in other places. And when it calls – what the Kremlin playbook calls for is delegitimizing, as I said, the democratically elected leaders and imposing fake people’s councils essentially made up of the Kremlin’s puppets and proxies. Again, this is something that we’ve seen in the past, and we’re looking very closely to see whether the Kremlin might try to orchestrate something like this in the near future.
So just as Russia engineered these quasi-statelets, the Donetsk “people’s republic” and the Luhansk “people’s republic,” now we believe that the Kremlin may be trying to organize a Kherson “people’s republic” in the Kherson oblast of southern Ukraine.
And here’s something that I also would like to highlight. According to the most recent reports, we believe that Russia will try to annex the Donetsk “people’s republic” and Luhansk “people’s republic,” in quotes, so-called, to Russia. The reports state that Russia has plans to engineer referenda on joining Russia sometime in mid-May, and that Moscow is considering a similar plan for Kherson.
Now, the international community, including the OSCE, where I work as ambassador, has been very clear that such referenda, such sham referenda, fabricated votes, will not be considered legitimate, nor will any attempts to annex additional Ukrainian territory. But we have to act. We have to act with a sense of urgency. And if you’ll allow me, I’ll say a few things that we’re doing at the OSCE in this regard.
We are exposing Russia’s actions, doing it here in Washington at the podium every day, my colleagues are. We’re doing it at the OSCE. We’re doing it in other multilateral fora. We are standing with Ukraine. We are isolating Russia diplomatically, which is the case at the OSCE. We are working to – overtime and leaving no stone unturned to try to get humanitarian assistance to the populations in need across Ukraine. And we’re working, in fact, at the OSCE on the ground to provide some humanitarian relief as well as calling for a humanitarian pause and an end to this monstrous war of choice that Russia has waged on Ukraine.
So that’s what I’ve got, and I’m happy to take a few questions.
MR PRICE: Great, start with a few questions. Yes.
QUESTION: Ambassador, speaking of Kherson, you mentioned Russia’s political intentions. We have also seen pictures of how Russian troops are declaring victory and then installing the statues of Lenin. Why are they doing this?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Well, look, I’m not going to speak to the political mythology that Russian forces are trying to impose on democratic Ukraine. But I think it speaks volumes that we have seen this sort of effort underway. And it jives certainly with the propaganda that we have heard from Moscow.
MR PRICE: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Can you detail how specific are those reports and what is the source? Is this intelligence? And do you have any response planned to react to that, any more sanctions?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: So we think the reports are highly credible. For reasons I’m sure you all can appreciate, I won’t get into specific sources and methods. But we have every reason to believe that these reports are highly credible. And I can’t – by the way, I’ll just follow up on that. I cannot speak to whether Russia will be able to execute on its planning, but this is the planning that we are seeing.
MR PRICE: Simon.
QUESTION: There’re some reports that Russia, President Putin might formally declare war with Ukraine. I wonder if you have any sense whether that’s possible and what that might mean for some of these plans. Would that give them any extra ability to conduct the kind of things you’re talking about?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Look, I know there’s speculation that a formal declaration of war would allow Russia to engage in mass mobilization. But I can’t speak to their intentions.
MR PRICE: Matt.
QUESTION: Yeah. Sorry for being late and forgetting my phone, having to leave. But on the reports that you’re talking about, about Donetsk and Luhansk and annexation, what can the OSCE actually do about this? We’ve already seen Abkhazia, South Ossetia. We’ve already seen Crimea.
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Well, I think as the Secretary – yeah.
QUESTION: You can come out and say, “Oh, well, we oppose this” all you want to. But the reality on the ground is that both those two places – part of Georgia, you would argue – are essentially not part of Georgia. And even though they’re not recognized by anyone other than Nicaragua and Belarus, maybe, what actually can you do?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Well, part of what we’re trying to do is to expose Russia’s intentions. And as the Secretary said some time ago, unfortunately we have been more right than wrong in exposing what we believe may be coming next. And so that is part of what we are trying to do here, but of course, this all falls into the larger strategy of dealing with Russia’s revanchism and imposing costs and degrading their war machine.
QUESTION: Okay. But then, Crimea – I mean, this is stuff that you don’t have to warn about. It’s stuff that’s already actually happened. And you and others can say we don’t recognize Crimea as part of Russia, and yet it is, de facto. Right?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: We do not recognize Russia’s attempted annexation —
QUESTION: No, I know you don’t. But —
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: — and I would just remind you of the Welles Declaration, which held for many, many decades as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy with regard to the Baltics.
QUESTION: I get that. But I’m just wondering – the OSCE seems to be completely toothless here. It can’t really do anything.
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Well, the OSCE – that’s a separate question. The OSCE is a consensual organization, but it has engaged – first of all, it has a field presence in Ukraine. The project coordinator’s office does exist inside Ukraine and assists with the disbursement of humanitarian relief. We have invoked something called the Moscow mechanism, which is an accountability tool for documenting human rights abuses, war crimes, and possible crimes against humanity. And we speak out, and we isolate Russia and Belarus diplomatically, as I said at the outset. So we’re going to continue to do that. But the OSCE is not the perfect forum. It doesn’t allow us to accomplish every goal. But we use it to the extent that we can.
MR PRICE: Vivian.
QUESTION: Two questions, Ambassador. Vivian Salama from The Wall Street Journal. On the question if war crimes, I’m wondering what the OSCE’s role has been. And in particular, we’re talking about the southeastern part of the country, where we’re hearing reports about mobile crematorium and other ways that Russia is trying to basically hide some of its tracks – allegedly hide some of its tracks – in terms of what’s been going on there. And so what effort are you making to collect with your – with our allies, partners any kind of evidence and investigate and possibly prosecute down the line in conjunction with the UN and the International Criminal Court, and whether or not that’s being complicated by efforts to hide, cover it up?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Yeah, that’s a great question. So the OSCE in early March invoked something that I just referred to called the Moscow mechanism, the U.S. together with 44 other participating states. And as a result of that we were able to deploy a fact-finding team that collected evidence on violations of human rights, on war crimes, and on possible crimes against humanity. That team then released a report a couple of a weeks ago which, in fact, stated unequivocally that war crimes have been committed in Ukraine.
Now, I’m not an international lawyer, but my understanding is that those crimes then get prosecuted at the individual level. And so it is now incumbent on that fact-finding team and other similar accountability mechanisms to collect the evidence, preserve the evidence, and then eventually build cases so that everybody at all levels of the chain of command is held accountable.
QUESTION: The other question I wanted to ask you is there’s been discussion about replacing Ukraine’s weapons with sort of NATO-grade weapons, and I’m wondering if OSCE is also kind of working in conjunction with NATO to be able to kind of phase out some of the more Soviet-era weapons and security systems that Ukraine has, to give them sort of a – overall like a post-Soviet arsenal that they can fight this war.
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Yeah, this is not something that the OSCE is involved in. The OSCE does have a political-military dimension, but it’s primarily focused on military transparency and confidence- and security-building.
MR PRICE: Said and then Michele.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. Thank you, Ambassador. Quick question – we’ve heard the Secretary of Defense and I believe the Secretary of State talk about we weakened Russia, a weakening Russia. And we’ve – we heard the strategic defeat for Russia. When did that – what will that look like? Is that going to (inaudible)? I have another —
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: So I believed the Secretary of Defense referred to strategic as the goal, and of degrading Russia’s war machine so that it cannot prosecute this monstrous of a campaign against its neighbors in the future. And that does remain very much part of one of our goals.
MR PRICE: Michele.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: I just want to follow up. Do you expect the Russian president on May 9 – a week from today – to make some sort of an announcement that goals have been achieved and victory – much like, let’s say President George W. Bush did, I think 2003?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: I can’t anticipate what President Putin’s going to do on May 9th. I know that so far the military campaign has been an abject failure, and the monstrosity and the barbarity of Russia’s assault is plain for all to see.
MR PRICE: Michele.
QUESTION: Yes. Does the OSCE – you were saying – do they still have monitors in Ukraine? Are they able to document some of these things you’re talking about, the abductions, taking people out of Ukraine and forcing them into Russia? Do you have any sense of the scale of that?
And then secondly, have you seen any indications that the Russians are stirring up trouble in any of these other frozen conflicts where the OSCE does have monitors, whether Transnistria or Nagorno-Karabakh or any of these other frozen conflicts?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Yeah. So on your first question, the OSCE did have a several-hundred-person-strong special monitoring mission in Ukraine that was deployed primarily around the line of contact, and that monitoring mission did exist until a few weeks ago when it was evacuated, at first temporarily, but then Russia vetoed the mandate, essentially, of the SMM or the monitoring mission. And so that mission in now in a wind-down process.
As far as some of the other protracted conflicts on Russia’s periphery, of course, we watch very carefully. There were some unexplained explosions in Transnistria just last week, and we continue to look very carefully. And it is, in fact, part of the OSCE mandate to monitor the security situation in and around Transnistria in Moldova. And of course, we watch Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia as well.
MR PRICE: A few more questions. Yes.
QUESTION: As you well know, today Georgia has quite horrible situation in terms (inaudible) violations in the occupied territories of Georgia, and the role of OSCE has always been so important for us. Against in this background, Georgia has repeatedly heard calls about the opening of second front as – and that now might be the time for Georgia to retake the occupied territories by military force. How acceptable do you think are such statements and calls?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: We think that the Georgian Government has behaved very responsibly when it comes to its own territories of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region, and we have, of course, been steadfast supporters of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. At this moment there is an EU monitoring mission on the ground in Georgia, as you’re well aware. And the OSCE also participates in something called incident response and prevention mechanisms on the administrative boundary lines of both Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region, and so we continue to monitor the situation.
MR PRICE: Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you. Ambassador, when will the United States embassy resume the work in Kyiv? Is it soon as possible?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Well, the Secretary has said that we intend to go back into Ukraine. I think there’s already temporary visits occurring right now. But on a more permanent basis in the near future, I can’t speak to the time.
MR PRICE: Jenny.
QUESTION: Hi. Thank you, Ambassador. To follow-up on Michele’s question, you’ve spoken to filtration camps in the past. Do you have an estimate of how many Ukrainians have been forcibly moved through these camps? And is there anything the OSCE is doing to try to track – once they are taken out of Ukraine – what happens to these people?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Yes. So we have exposed this brutal practice, or at least the reports of it. We have information from the Mariupol mayor’s office that there are something like four of these filtration camps in and around Mariupol. I would expect there might be more in the south and east of Ukraine. Of course, this would be in violation of international humanitarian law, and a war crime if people were forcibly being displaced from Ukraine to Russia. So the OSCE’s human rights monitoring mechanism will continue to look at this.
Of course, there’s an issue of access, right? I mean, those – that’s a – an active war zone right now. And so access is limited. But we’re going to continue to look at this, absolutely.
MR PRICE: Yes, please.
QUESTION: Can you – you spoke a little bit about this when you were asked about – in one of your briefings a couple of weeks ago, but do you have anything more about those reports on children —
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Can you repeat? I didn’t hear the first part.
QUESTION: You spoke about this a couple of weeks ago in a briefing that you did. Do you have any more about reports about enforced adoption of children, Ukrainian children, in the context of these filtration camps? And also, you followed up a little bit on the President’s opinion that he believes that Putin is committing genocide in Ukraine. I know this is a long process in terms of a legal process, but you did comment a little bit on, again, what you believed might attribute to genocide. Can you comment at all on the length or the timing of this process?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Well, so to the first part of your question I would just say that if women and children and elderly and other individuals are being displaced forcibly, as I said earlier, that would be a war crime and it would just be appalling as a completely uncivilized endeavor. And so yes, it needs to be tracked very closely and documentation needs to be done to ensure that there is accountability for such actions in the future. I can’t speak to numbers, I can’t speak to specifics, because the information is at this point quite limited.
And then remind me of the second part of your question? On genocide, yes.
So I think I’ll let my previous comments on this stand. I have nothing to add to that.
MR PRICE: Take a final question?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Yes.
QUESTION: Is there an indication PRC’s helping Russia on the ground in Ukraine?
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: No. I don’t think we have any indications at the current time that the PRC is endeavoring to help Russia with its military campaign in Ukraine. But obviously, we’ll watch.
MR PRICE: Thank you, Ambassador.
AMBASSADOR CARPENTER: Thanks so much.
MR PRICE: Thanks.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PRICE: All right. I don’t have anything else at the top. Ready to take your questions.
QUESTION: Great. Thanks, Ned. Welcome back from the weekend; hope you had a good one.
MR PRICE: You as well.
QUESTION: Two things really briefly on Ukraine – and I’ve got two other subjects, but I’ll let everyone else finish before. But just don’t forget that I’ve got these two other non-Ukraine-related —
MR PRICE: We will come back to you.
QUESTION: At the end. First of all, on the question that was just asked about the embassy and diplomats going back into Ukraine, are they going in every day? Since – have they been going in every day to Lviv, sorry, since Tuesday? And is there a timeline that you can offer about the reopening of the embassy?
MR PRICE: For just about a week now, our diplomats have been making day trips into Lviv from Poland where they are currently based. It is not every day, but it has been consistent. As some of you may have seen, they were in Lviv today. Our chargé even did some public appearances, did some media appearances as well. But they have been able to take advantage of these sporadic trips into Lviv to meet with their counterparts from the ministry of foreign affairs, to meet with civil society, to meet with other important stakeholders, and they will continue to do that.
Now, of course, we want to ladder up to having a regular presence in Kyiv. Every single day, we’re monitoring the security situation on the ground ot determine when we’ll be able to do that. The only answer I can give you right now as to the question of when is: as soon as possible. I think it is fair to say, as you heard from our chargé today, that that will be within the coming weeks, but it will depend on a regular assessment of the security situation and our ability to operate safely and responsibly from Kyiv.
QUESTION: Right. And as you know, there’s been quite a lot of interest in the idea of Marine guards, would they go to – would there be – or would there be, whether they are the fully dressed and uniformed Marine guard detachment that is at most but not all embassies – when that happens, the “as soon as possible” happens, will – would – they would obviously be going in with security. So how does that fit with the idea that there aren’t going to be any U.S. troops, soldiers on the ground in Ukraine?
MR PRICE: What I can tell you is that our diplomats will return to Kyiv just as soon as it is safe and responsible and appropriate for them to do so. There are obviously details that go into that question of safety and responsible – responsibility in terms of any return to Kyiv. As you know, we don’t comment on our security practices. That will be the case here, but our diplomats will be back on the ground in Kyiv just as – as it is safe for them to do so.
QUESTION: On the second one, and I’m just – I’m wondering if you – you’re not directly involved in this, but I’m sure you have seen the comments that Foreign Minister Lavrov made in an interview with Italian media about anti-Semitism. I’m wondering if you have any comments on that.
MR PRICE: We, of course, have seen those despicable comments. We also saw a number of responses from other world leaders. The one that stuck out to me, stuck out to many of us here, was the response from Israeli Foreign Minister Lapid. He is, of course, someone who speaks with a great deal of authority on these matters. It would be impossible to improve upon the response that he offered. As he said, the foreign minister’s “remarks are both an unforgivable and outrageous statement as well as a terrible historical error.” He went on to note that “Jews did not murder themselves in the Holocaust. The lowest level of racism against Jews is to accuse Jews themselves of anti-Semitism.”
This statement from Foreign Minister Lavrov – it was the lowest form of racism, it was the lowest form of propaganda, it was the lowest form of insidious lies. And I think with it and other not only statements but conduct from the Kremlin, its top officials, its personnel – including its personnel in Ukraine – the Kremlin is consistently proving that there is no floor when it comes to just how low they can stoop. And this, I think, is just the latest example of that.
Yes, Said.
QUESTION: Ned, to follow up on the answer I got regarding the strategic defeat, now, unless I misunderstood what the ambassador said – but it dealt with degrading, I guess, Russia’s capability of making arms and so on like this, depleting their weapons. Is that – something akin to that? But Russia makes its own weapons. I mean, they seem to have, like, an endless source of weapons and so on if they choose to.
MR PRICE: So coming back to your question and to the answer that the ambassador gave, he accurately noted – and I think I’ve said this before – but I have been surprised at the level of surprise that we’ve heard in response to Secretary Austin’s comment. But as the ambassador noted, what Secretary Austin was referring to was a strategic failure on the part of the Kremlin and the Russians here. And we are two months into the Kremlin’s war effort in Ukraine. I think it is clear to everyone, or it should be clear to everyone who is looking at this impartially, the elements of the strategic failure that has already come to pass.
Moscow had several objectives in mind when it went into Ukraine on February 24th. It sought to subjugate Ukraine, to enhance Russian power, to divide the West. On each of those fronts, you have seen Moscow fail in its objectives. The Ukrainian people have demonstrated that Moscow will not be able to take Ukraine by force; that Ukraine’s sovereignty, its independence will outlast this military objective. You have seen that rather than enhance Russian power, Russia’s power in the region and beyond is significantly diluted, and it is diluted because of something you referred to, Said. Those are the export controls but also the economic sanctions that we have placed on Moscow. It’s diluted because of the diplomatic isolation, the pariah status that President Putin’s war campaign in Ukraine has bestowed upon him.
To your specific question, yes, Moscow does have a defense industry. It is a defense industry that is not wholly self-reliant. It is reliant on key inputs and products from the international community, including from the West. That is precisely what our export controls are designed to choke off. Because of that, Moscow’s high tech, its defense sectors, its aerospace sector, its energy exploration sector – a number of strategic sectors that Moscow would need for its regional and ambitions beyond the region – have been and are being starved.
And as I said before, Russia is now a pariah. It is a pariah in terms of the response we’ve seen from the international community. You look at any number of votes at the UN, for example, we’re 141 countries, the vast majority of the world – world’s countries have come together to condemn President Putin’s behavior, to what we’re seeing from countries around the world, many of whom have relationships with Russia. And just today, made mention of the response that we’ve heard from Foreign Minister Lapid regarding what Foreign Minister Lavrov had to say.
So this is a strategic failure for Moscow. The ingredients of that are already evident. Every day we’re seeing more evidence of it. And the strategy we have will be to continue to empower our Ukrainian partners – to empower them with security assistance, to support their economic needs, to support the humanitarian needs of the Ukrainian people – just as we continue to apply significant and really unprecedented amounts of pressure on Russia in terms of our sanctions, in terms of our export controls, in terms of the diplomatic isolation that we in turn are applying with, again, dozens of countries around the world.
Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. I have two questions on North Korea, Russia, and China. Regarding Russia, North Koreans support Russia’s war in Ukraine. If North Korea and China engaged in military cooperation with Russia, the war is sure to escalate. What kind of efforts is the United States pursuing to prevent China and North Korea from cooperating with Russia? And I have a follow-up —
MR PRICE: Sure. Well, that is obviously a hypothetical at this point. You just asked – one of your colleagues just asked Ambassador Carpenter about any support that we are seeing the PRC provide to Russia’s war effort. As we said a number of weeks ago, we had indications that Russia was seeking that support. In response, we made very clear that we would watch closely any reaction from the PRC. If in fact the PRC aided Russia’s war effort in any way – with weapons helping it to offset in a systemic way the losses it is enduring from the response of the international community – that there would be strong consequences from not only the United States, but from our allies and partners around the world.
As the ambassador just made clear again, we have in fact been watching closely, and we have not detected any shift, but any shift would incur those consequences.
QUESTION: Second question: Recently Russian President Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un declared the use of nuclear weapons. How would you analyze the impact of this on the Korean Peninsula? And does the United States recognize North Korea as a nuclear power state?
MR PRICE: Well, of course we’re concerned about the rhetoric that has emerged from some corners of the Russian Federation. The loose talk of the use of any weapon of mass destruction, it is the height of irresponsibility. Russia as a nuclear power has a solemn obligation to act responsibly. Russia as early as – as recently, I should say, as this year, again, reaffirmed a maxim that’s been around since the days of the Cold War by underscoring what we heard from UN Security Council: that a nuclear war must never be fought and cannot be won. That’s something that Russia affirmed, has affirmed consistently over the course of decades. It was affirmed after President Biden’s summit, meeting with President Putin in June of last year. The UN Security Council put it out again this year. Now, we have seen contradictory statements. We have heard other Russian officials downplay any potential use of weapons of mass destruction. Regardless, it is, as I said before, the height of irresponsibility for anyone to engage in such loose talk, but especially coming from a nuclear power like Russia.
It is dangerous not only in the context of Ukraine, but it is also dangerous for the diluting effect that such talk could have on the global nonprolifation norm. It is our goal, along with other responsible nuclear powers and a broader set of stakeholders, to see to it that the nonproliferation norm, including those norms that are enshrined in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, are instead protected, that they are fortified. And that’s why we’re speaking out very clearly in response to these reckless comments from the Russians.
Yes, Francesco.
QUESTION: Following up on Simon’s questions on May 9, do you have anything to add on your assessment on whether Russia may or may not declare formally war and what that would mean for Ukraine and for its partners? And more broadly, what are your expectations or concerns on what may be said or happen on that day?
MR PRICE: Again, we are not going to preview what the Russians may seek to do on the so-called Victory Day on May 9th.
QUESTION: You previewed what they’re going to do everywhere else. Since December you’ve been previewing —
MR PRICE: Well, I appreciate you acknowledging that now, but –
QUESTION: Well, no. I’m not saying that your previews were always correct, but I’m saying that you’ve been – you’ve made no – you haven’t been shy about previewing –
MR PRICE: If we have something specific to share, we will. What I can say is that I think everyone, including, I assume, many of you in this room, have good reason to believe that the Russians will do everything they can to use the date in terms of their propaganda effort. We’ve seen the Russians really double down on their propaganda efforts, probably – almost certainly – as a means to distract from their tactical and strategic failures on the battlefield in Ukraine, the strategic failure that we’ve seen this military campaign result in in terms of Russia’s economy, its standing in the international community, its position on the world stage.
And so I think it is safe to assume that that will continue. I’ve seen the speculation that Russia may formally declare war. I suppose I would add that that would be a great irony if Moscow used the occasion of Victory Day to declare war, which in itself would allow them to surge conscripts in a way they’re not able to do now, in a way that would be tantamount to revealing to the world that their war effort is failing, that they are floundering in their military campaign and military objectives. But I am quite confident that we’ll be hearing more from Moscow in the leadup to May 9th. I am quite confident you’ll be hearing more from the United States, from our partners, including our NATO partners, in the leadup to May 9th as well.
Yes, Vivian.
QUESTION: Ned, two questions, please. Despite the limited visibility that we have in Mariupol, especially at the steel plant, do you have any indication that Russia will allow more civilians to be evacuated? And also, is the U.S. working behind the scenes at all to facilitate some of those negotiations along with – I know the UN is taking the lead. That’s my first question. I have another one on Moldova.
MR PRICE: Well, we do welcome the reports that have emerged in recent hours that some civilians have been able to evacuate Mariupol, and we encourage continued efforts to allow civilians to depart Mariupol and other cities under siege. We are in communication with the international humanitarian organizations involved in this effort. We will remain in close coordination and communication with them. We will do that because we know that humanitarian corridors are absolutely critical to evacuating citizens and providing urgently needed humanitarian aid. That includes food. It includes medicine. It includes water and other needed supplies, needed by those who are besieged, who are at this very moment seeking to escape harm’s way.
People need to be let out. Humanitarian supplies need to be let in. We want to make sure that the limited humanitarian access we’ve seen in recent hours is not fleeting. Doing so would demonstrate that there may be a genuine humanitarian intent behind this evacuation and not just another craven attempt on the part of the Kremlin to change the narrative to achieve a PR victory. We want this humanitarian access to be sustained, to be sustained until everyone who is trapped in Mariupol, everyone who is trapped in other cities that are under siege because of this Russian assault, is able to flee to safety.
QUESTION: The second one on Moldova, really quickly. You did address it about 10 days ago. The situation there hasn’t quite stabilized yet. At what point is U.S. aid and also those renewed relations that we now – or the engagements that we now have with the Moldovan Government at risk if the situation continues as is?
MR PRICE: Well, our relationship with the Moldovan Government is not at risk. And I think, if anything, you have seen us redouble our partnership with Chişinău in recent weeks. As you know, Secretary Blinken was there just a few weeks ago. We had an excellent set of bilateral meetings with his counterpart as well as with the Moldovan leadership. We restarted our strategic dialogue with Moldova just last month – it was the first time in several years that we had held a meeting of our – of this strategic dialogue – precisely because of the urgency of this moment, of the imperative of demonstrating our commitment to the government, to the people of Moldova, to its sovereignty, its independence, its territorial integrity and its constitutionally enshrined neutrality as well.
Over the course of our relationship with Moldova, independent Moldova, the United States has supported the Moldovan people with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of support. In recent weeks alone, we have provided tens of millions of additional dollars in humanitarian assistance. Moldova has opened its doors to those fleeing violence across the border in Ukraine; it has done so generously. And the United States will continue to stand by the people and Government of Moldova as it does so.
Said.
QUESTION: Thank you. Can I change topics?
MR PRICE: Anything else on Russia-Ukraine? Let’s take a couple more questions. Jenny.
QUESTION: Okay. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a congressional delegation this weekend to Kyiv. Did any embassy officials or Diplomatic Security agents accompany this congressional delegation on that trip?
MR PRICE: Well, let me just say generally about the speaker’s visit, it sends a clear message that the United States stands with Ukraine. It underscores the strong bipartisan commitment of the American people to supporting the brave people of Ukraine who are standing up the Kremlin’s brutality.
This delegation underscored that we will continue to work with our allies and partners to maintain support for Ukraine and to do everything we can, as I was saying before, to put pressure on Russia, to strengthen Ukraine’s position at the – on the battlefield, and to ensure that Ukraine emerges victorious.
We were in close coordination with the speaker and her office in advance of this visit. Of course, I’m not going to comment on security arrangements, but anytime the individual who is third in line to the presidency travels into a place like Ukraine going into Kyiv, of course security is of paramount importance to us.
Yes, one more.
QUESTION: Russia? Yeah. Russia’s spy plane reportedly violated airspaces of Denmark and Sweden over the weekend. I wonder if you have any reaction given the fact that Denmark is a member of NATO. And one more question on this: another part of the war going on, which is on cyberspace. Over the weekend, we heard the DDoS attacks against Romania and Moldova. Any reaction from the State Department?
MR PRICE: So on the first I would refer you to the Department of Defense. I’m aware there have been a number of routine intercepts of Russian aircraft, but the Department of Defense would be able to provide more of a comment on that.
I don’t have anything specific to offer in terms of reported DDoS attacks against our partners in Europe. We do know, however, that Moscow’s playbook is quite long. Cyber attacks are certainly part of that playbook. We know that they have used these tactics against countries in the region. We spoke openly of cyber attacks against Ukraine in the hours and the days leading up to the start of the invasion, including DDoS attacks against Ukrainian systems. So it’s something we continue to watch very closely.
Said.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Back with me on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Last week Matt asked you about the new Israeli rules on foreigners visiting West Bank, which is – which stirred quite an outrage and restricts the Palestinians mainly – schools, colleges, and so on. If you have any position on that.
MR PRICE: We’re aware of the new procedures for foreigners to enter and reside in the West Bank that were recently published by Israel’s COGAT and they’re due to go into effect, as we understand. We continue to study them. We are engaging with Israeli counterparts to understand their applications and any implications of them.
QUESTION: But they go into effect on the 22nd of this month. So you’re still studying them?
QUESTION: Does that mean —
MR PRICE: We are still studying them. Correct.
QUESTION: The exact same answer I got —
MR PRICE: You were —
QUESTION: — offline last week. So really, there hasn’t been, like, since – I think I asked on Wednesday, maybe Thursday.
QUESTION: It was on Tuesday.
QUESTION: So really, there hasn’t been any more deep dive into what this actually means?
MR PRICE: You asked less than a week ago. They are due to go into effect. We are taking a close look at them.
QUESTION: But you’re taking since February.
MR PRICE: And we will —
QUESTION: You guys have been aware of them for over a month.
MR PRICE: We will – if we have – if —
QUESTION: There has been serious concern about this, as particularly as it relates to Israel’s application or attempts to get into the Visa Waiver Program —
QUESTION: Right.
MR PRICE: When it comes —
QUESTION: — because people who have —
MR PRICE: When it comes —
QUESTION: — actually looked at —
MR PRICE: When it comes —
QUESTION: Let me finish. People who have actually read it are concerned that this will give the Israelis a way to deny entry to Palestinian Americans before they actually present themselves in Israel – in other words, that they have to apply here to the embassy and the embassy can turn them down, and that under some kind of technicality that the Israelis could then say they haven’t actually been denied entry because they never actually got to Israel to present themselves in person. So that’s the specific question.
Now, please try to get an answer to what it is that you guys think about this.
MR PRICE: Matt —
QUESTION: And on a tangential issue —
MR PRICE: Do you want me to speak to the Visa Waiver Program or do you want to go on with your soliloquy?
QUESTION: Well, yes. Yeah, you go ahead – you go ahead —
MR PRICE: When it comes to the Visa Waiver Program, we continue to work with our Israeli partners and with our Israeli counterparts towards fulfilling the program requirements, including extending reciprocal privileges to all U.S. citizens and nationals upon arrival. As you know, this is something that we work with the Department of Homeland Security. The Secretary of State, along with his Homeland Security counterpart, will have authority over this, and we’re continuing to work closely with our Israeli partners on it.
QUESTION: Yeah, that’s also the exact same answer I got last week, which was more than five days ago, so —
MR PRICE: And I imagine that will be the answer until there’s a – potentially a different answer.
QUESTION: Well, you know what, if I don’t do a quote/unquote “soliloquy,” I’m never going to get an answer to this question, at least not one on camera, on the record.
Anyway, tangentially to this issue – and Said has been asking about this – but these six human rights groups that were declared terrorist organizations. So two members – two senior members – of two of these groups have been denied exit from Israel, one of whom is an American citizen. The other one has a valid U.S. visa. They were trying to get to Mexico for a meeting of the World Social Forum, which I imagine that you might be aware of, but they can’t get out. Now, I know that you don’t – you probably won’t have a lot to say about a U.S. visa holder because they’re not an American citizen, but there is one American citizen, and I’m just wondering – this is Sahar Francis. Do you have anything to say about the Israelis (inaudible)?
MR PRICE: You’re right, Matt, we don’t. As you know, visa records are confidential, so we’re not in a position to comment on any individual visa holders. As we discussed with Said last week, we have made clear to our Israeli Government and Palestinian Authority counterparts that independent civil society organizations in the West Bank, in Israel must be able to continue their important work. We value the monitoring of human rights violations and abuses that these types of independent NGOs undertake in places like Gaza, in the West Bank, in Israel, and elsewhere around the world, and we strongly believe that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and a strong civil society are critically important to responsive and responsible governance and democratic governance. And so that’s why it’s important that we continue to monitor those conditions, and we absolutely will with the help of our partners in civil society.
QUESTION: Okay. And on – then on the – on the actual – on the U.S. citizen, the U.S. passport holder, Ubai Aboudi, the executive director of the Bisan Center for Research and Development?
MR PRICE: Again, Matt, as you know, we’re not in a position to speak from the podium to actions as it relates to a particular American citizen.
QUESTION: Well, how about just denying American citizens the ability to leave? I mean, it’s one thing to not allow them in. It’s another to not let them leave, isn’t it?
MR PRICE: Matt, I can’t speak to a specific American citizen in this case.
Said.
QUESTION: Well, just to remind you that this actually – it’s people like us, like myself, like my brothers and so on, that go in and they are asked as they enter whether they own property, where they own their property, where they go and so on. Awful stuff. These are good, solid, taxpaying citizens of this country.
I have another question for you on the king of Jordan. He is on a private visit to the United States. Will there be any meeting by the – with the Secretary of State on the issues that are ongoing, whether on Al-Aqsa Mosque —
MR PRICE: Typically when world leaders travel here on private visits, we don’t speak to the schedule. Typically if it is a private visit, there won’t be any interaction. I don’t have any meetings to preview.
Yes, Michel.
QUESTION: Ned, do you have any comment on The New York Times story on the death of the Egyptian economist Ayman Hadhoud?
MR PRICE: We are deeply disturbed by reports surrounding the death in custody of Egyptian researcher Ayman Hadhoud and allegations of his torture while in detention. The circumstances of his detention, his treatment, of his death we think require a thorough, transparent, and credible investigation without delay. We have made clear with – including with our Egyptian partners that human rights are a priority. We have urged the Egyptian Government to make progress on protecting human rights in virtually every session, whether it’s over the phone, whether it’s face to face.
We have raised the issue of human rights. We raise the issue broadly. We also raise specific cases, and just as we express our disturbance when there are significant and shocking setbacks, as in this case, we also do welcome when there are positive steps, and we do welcome reports of Egypt’s release last week and over the weekend of dozens of political detainees and journalists. We strongly support additional releases and pardons. As we know, as we’ve said before, that progress on human rights, it will lead to progress in our bilateral relationship. That is true in the case of Egypt; it is true in every bilateral relationship we have.
QUESTION: And one more on Iran. Reuters has quoted Western officials saying that they have largely lost hope the Iran nuclear deal can be resurrected. Do you share the same assessment?
MR PRICE: It continues to be the case that we believe a mutual return to compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is in our national security interests. It is in our national security interest primarily because it would reimpose the permanent, the verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program. It would put a box back on Iran’s nuclear program, a program that has been in many ways unshackled since 2018 and a program that has galloped forward in ways that are unacceptable to us, they are unacceptable to our partners around the world, and it is something that we seek to change.
We will continue to forge ahead with efforts, with dialogue via the – via our partners, including the European Union, to seek to achieve a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA for as long as we determine that a mutual return to compliance would be in our interests. Again, at this point, it would still be in our interests. If and when we reached the point where the nonproliferation benefits of a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA would not overcome the progress that Iran has achieved in its nuclear program in the past three or so years, that’s when we’ll reassess and pursue an alternative course.
QUESTION: There’s reporting that Enrique Mora is offering to go to Tehran to break that deadlock, and Iran has not responded. Do you have any more detail you can provide on that?
MR PRICE: I would need to refer you to Mr. Mora’s office, but we are in close contact with him, the EU coordinator. We – he does continue to convey messages back and forth. We do support his efforts to bring these negotiations to a conclusion.
Yes.
QUESTION: President Biden confirmed to CBS today that Austin Tice’s parents are meeting with the President. Does this signify any change or update in his case, or – and/or is it because Debra Tice was recognized at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner? And can you give us an update on the assessment of his case?
MR PRICE: It’s a testament to the fact that the case of Austin Tice, who has spent nearly a quarter of his life in detention – he celebrated his 40th birthday this past year. This August he will mark a solemn occasion of his 10th anniversary in custody. It is a testament to the fact that achieving a successful resolution to this case, reuniting Austin with his family, with his parents, Debra and Marc, that is a priority of ours. It has been a priority of ours.
There is no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens who are detained around the world. And of course, the case of Austin Tice is one that has attracted, with good reason, the focus, the attention of the world. He is someone who traveled the world, including into Syria, to do nothing more than to spread reporting, to spread the truth. And he has been in detention, he has been away from his family for far too long. We’re doing everything we can to see that come to a successful conclusion.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? Will the Tices meet with Secretary Blinken or Roger Carstens or anyone at the State Department?
MR PRICE: The State Department is regularly in touch with the Tices. We do have, through our SPEHA office, regular contact with them. The Secretary has had an occasion to meet them, including quite recently had an opportunity to sit down Debra Tice.
QUESTION: Another follow-up on that.
MR PRICE: Yes.
QUESTION: We know that the prisoner exchange that resulted in the freedom of Trevor Reed came after months of intense talks. Obviously the diplomatic relationship with Syria is a bit different. Can the Tice family hope for a similar happy outcome given that – circumstances?
MR PRICE: As we were – the point – I made a couple points in response to the release of Trevor Reed. One is that you didn’t hear us share the details of those consultations before he was released. We do believe that we can best and most effectively achieve potentially successful outcomes if we do have space to conduct private conversations.
A second point: We of course don’t have, I would say, normal – fully normal relations with Moscow at this time, and yet we were able to have a discreet, focused set of discussions regarding the effort to free Trevor Reed that ultimately were successful. When it comes to our efforts to free Americans, the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Ambassador Carstens, he will go anywhere, he will talk to anyone if it means that we’re able to come home with an American, to reunite that American with her or his family. That is true in the case of Austin Tice. It is true in the case of Paul Whelan. It is true in the case of the Americans who are detained in Iran and Americans who are detained around the world.
Yes.
QUESTION: Ned, on press freedom, the U.S. Government assessed that the Russian intelligence was behind the recent attack against Nobel Peace Prize laureate – actual winner, Muratov. Ahead of the Press Freedom Day, I want to give you a chance to put that into context in terms of the state of press freedom in Russia.
And secondly, to South Caucasus, there was a Memorandum of Understanding signed today between the U.S. and Armenia. Can you talk about the significance of nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and the South Caucasus countries?
And also, I’ve seen several MOUs between the U.S, Poland, and several other countries. What is the process behind that, and who approached whom in terms of the —
MR PRICE: The process behind what?
QUESTION: The signature of – signing this Memorandum of Understanding.
MR PRICE: Got it.
QUESTION: Or is it – the process behind that. Thank you.
MR PRICE: So as you alluded to, there was a bilateral meeting today between the Secretary and his Armenian counterpart, Foreign Minister Mirzoyan, here at the Department of State. This will launch the U.S.-Armenia Strategic Dialogue. We will have a readout of this session later today. But what I can tell you now is that the Secretary committed to further strengthening bilateral relations in line with our shared democratic values and continuing cooperation on Armenia’s reform agenda.
During the meeting, as you alluded to, the Secretary and his foreign minister counterpart, they did sign a nuclear cooperation Memorandum of Understanding, paving the way for increased cooperation on civil nuclear matters as Armenia looks to diversify its energy supply. They also discussed Armenia’s progress in implementing democratic rule of law and anti-corruption reforms as well as a broader dialogue about relations between Armenia and its neighbors.
This will lead into tomorrow’s Strategic Dialogue. That Strategic Dialogue will coincide with the 30th anniversary of the establishment of U.S.-Armenian diplomatic relations. It underscores our shared commitment to strengthening bilateral ties and a bilateral relationship that is both broad and deep and that will be broader and deeper at the conclusion of this Strategic Dialogue.
When it comes to press freedom in Russia – and you’ll hear more from us tomorrow, we’re currently on the eve of World Press Freedom Day and so I do expect you will hear from Secretary Blinken tomorrow on World Press Freedom Day – but it is difficult to identify a country where we have seen more setbacks, more destruction to the principle of press freedom and freedom of information than in Russia over the past year, and especially in Russia over the past few weeks as the Kremlin has seemingly gone into overdrive in its efforts to hide from its own people the toll of this war, the opposition to this war, the fact that this war is not going to – according to plan, or at least not going to the plan that the Kremlin put forward.
We have seen journalists thrown in jail. We have seen journalists intimidated. We have seen news outlets in Russia be shut down. We have seen news outlets in Russia be essentially forced to close. And on top of that, we have seen the toll of Russia’s assault on Ukraine; of course, principally, in the first instance, on the Ukrainian people. But journalists, reporters have also paid the price. And just late last week, of course, we lost a journalist with RFL – Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty who was killed in a Russian strike on a residential apartment building outside of Kyiv. She, of course, was not the first journalist to have lost her life in this conflict. Many more journalists have been injured. A journalist who should be in this briefing room right here today was injured as a result of Russia’s aggression as well. So this is something we’ll be speaking to in more detail tomorrow, I can assure you.
Final question.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) because I’ve got – I have one more.
MR PRICE: Okay. All right. Let me go there and then we’ll come back.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. I want to follow up on the report about Mora reaching out to Tehran. The Wall Street Journalreport also says that Western diplomats have said that if Iran comes back with a demand for a U.S. concession or another issue, Washington would be willing to consider it. It sounds like there is a message here from Washington to Mora to take to Tehran if he goes. And is there any more room for concession to Iran? And what other possible issues within the framework of the JCPOA would Washington be willing to talk about?
MR PRICE: I think there was a slight misimpression, at least in the way it was conveyed. But what we have said is that, one, we’re not going to negotiate in public. At the same time, we have made clear that we are focused on the JCPOA, on the nuclear agreement. If Iran wants to seek – wants to put issues on the table that are outside the confines of the JCPOA, Iran will of course have to be in a position to make concessions on those issues. That’s just the very nature of any negotiation.
But what we are focused on is the JCPOA, testing the proposition as to whether we can achieve a mutual return to compliance. We’ll continue down that path as long as we deem that a potential return to compliance would be in our interest.
Yes.
QUESTION: I asked Jalina about this on Friday. She said she was just learning of it in real time, which is fair enough, so she didn’t have an answer. But this has to do with the situation in Nepal – happened on Friday – with the assault of at least one, possibly two or three U.S. embassy staff who were trying to help a father and a daughter in a child abduction case. What can you tell me about that? Because I understand that the embassy has filed a formal complaint with the Nepalese home ministry about this.
MR PRICE: Well, Jalina spoke on Friday to the child custody case —
QUESTION: No, she said she was aware of it. I’m not actually asking about that right now. I’m asking about an assault on U.S. personnel.
MR PRICE: We’ve been in touch with our posts in Nepal. There’s nothing that we can share publicly on any alleged assault. But when it comes to this case, we’re aware of reports of alleged child abduction in Nepal involving U.S. citizens. We are providing all appropriate consular assistance, as we do in these cases. Our highest priority is the welfare of our citizens overseas, and we recognize that international child custody cases are by their very nature complex, they’re difficult. But we’re committed to doing all we can to resolving these challenging cases.
MR PRICE: Ned, that’s exactly what she said to me on Friday. Are you telling me that since Friday, you guys haven’t found anything else out? And why are you calling it an alleged assault? There’s video of this assault that’s out there on the internet.
MR PRICE: Matt, I am conveying to you what has been conveyed to us from our team.
QUESTION: Okay, well, can I just make – then can you retry? Because I’d like to find out, especially if there were serious injuries to American personnel in this. And then secondly, do you have anything – on the case itself, what are you guys doing to help?
MR PRICE: Matt, you’ve asked —
QUESTION: There was a court order again this morning in Chicago – judge issued a restraining order on this. So what are you doing?
MR PRICE: You —
QUESTION: And – okay, go ahead.
MR PRICE: You’ve asked a number of questions today about what we’re doing the cases of specific Americans. We’re obviously limited in what we can say in the – in terms of the specifics, especially from here, but it is our —
QUESTION: Because of why?
MR PRICE: Because of privacy considerations.
QUESTION: Okay. So here is the Privacy Act waiver that they have signed. All right? And I’m happy to provide this to you, but I know that you – I know that you have it. So let’s not go through this song and dance, okay? Well, most of the time when I complain about this, I don’t actually have the document, but now I do.
So I would like to get a straight answer about what you guys are doing, and also while – and also find out what exactly happened to U.S. embassy personnel who were assaulted, which is – you can see online – while they were attempting to assist in this case. Thank you.
MR PRICE: We’re in touch with the embassy today. It was conveyed to us that there’s nothing additional we can share publicly at this time. If that changes, if —
QUESTION: Does that mean that the privacy – oh wait, are you talking about the assault or are you taking about the case?
MR PRICE: I am talking —
QUESTION: Because if you’re just going to say – because I have the Privacy Act waiver right here signed. And if you’re going to say, well, that doesn’t matter, well, then – then what does the Privacy Act Waiver mean? You guys can just keep anything secret.
MR PRICE: I’m not saying that. I was referring to the to the alleged assault.
QUESTION: All right.
MR PRICE: Said, final question.
QUESTION: Sorry, Ned. Final question. Can you clarify for us Sahar Francis is not disallowed from entering the United States of America?
MR PRICE: Again —
QUESTION: Is she allowed or not allowed re-entry into the United States?
MR PRICE: Visa records are private and confidential. There’s nothing I can say from here on the specifics of any particular visa record.
Thank you all.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:36 p.m.)

Gov. Reynolds, Lt. Gov. Gregg release public schedule 

DES MOINES – Gov. Kim Reynolds and Lt. Gov. Adam Gregg released their public schedule for the week of Monday, May 2, 2022 – Sunday, May 8, 2022.
  
Thursday, May 5 
Governor Reynolds and Lt. Gov. Gregg attend National Day of Prayer and Gov. Reynolds signs proclamation 
Iowa State Capitol 
Rotunda 
Des Moines, IA 
11:30 a.m. 

Governor Reynolds and Lt. Gov. Gregg ride in Pella Tulip Festival Parade 
Pella, IA 
2:30 p.m. 

Friday, May 6 
Governor Reynolds and Lt. Gov. Gregg attend Iowa Peace Officer Memorial Ceremony 
Iowa Peace Officer Memorial 
215 E. 7th St. 
Des Moines, IA 
10:00 a.m. 

Governor Reynolds and Lt. Gov. Gregg attend Vietnam Veterans Recognition Day Ceremony 
Iowa Vietnam Memorial Wall, State Capitol Complex 
E. Walnut St. 
Des Moines, IA 
11:00 a.m. 

Governor Reynolds and Lt. Gov. Gregg attend VERBIO Nevada Biorefinery Grand Opening 
VERBIO Nevada, LLC. 
59129 Lincoln Hwy. 
Nevada, IA 
12:30 p.m. 

Governor Reynolds attends Gogo Plaza Dedication 
Blank Park Zoo 
7401 SW 9th St. 
Des Moines, IA  
4:00 p.m. 

5/2/2022, 5:30 PM
Special Session Agenda and Committee of the Whole Agenda
Mason City Community School District | Board of Education |
Administrative Center Instructional Support Center

Special Session Agenda | 05/02/2022 – 05:30 PM

Mason City Community School District | Board of Education | Administrative Center Instructional Support Center

The Board of Education will meet in a Special Session at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 2, 2022, in the Instructional Support Center of the Administrative Center, 1515 S. Pennsylvania Ave., Mason City, Iowa.
AGENDA

• I. CALL TO ORDER
• II. ROLL CALL
• III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

• IV. ACTION ITEMS
• A. Approval of Administrator Contract – Roosevelt Elementary Principa
• B. Approval of Administrator Contract – Mason City High School Associate Principa
• C. Approval of Administrator Contract – Mason City High School Associate Principa
• D. Approval of Administrator Contract – Lincoln Intermediate Associate Principa
• V. ADJOURNMENT

Committee of the Whole | 05/02/2022 – 05:30 PM

Mason City Community School District | Board of Education | Administrative Center Instructional Support Center

The Board of Education will meet in a Committee of the Whole work/study session immediately following the adjournment of the Special Session to be held at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 2, 2022, in the Instructional Support Center of the Administrative Center, 1515 S. Pennsylvania Ave., Mason City, Iowa.
AGENDA

• I. Joint Session with the School Improvement Advisory Committee (SIAC)
• II. 6-8 Math Curriculum Adoption Presentatio
• III. Proposed MCCSD District Goals for 2022-2
• IV. Proposed Professional Development Initiatives for 2022-23

Mason City police warn:

“Recently, we have received reports of local residents feeding wildlife, especially red fox. We reached out to the @iowadnr and worked with them to get some guidance for our community. Help us to keep the wild animals wild and refrain from feeding them.”

FBI Director Chris Wray called China’s government and the Chinese Communist Party the foremost threats to U.S. national security, in terms of counterintelligence. Their thirst for “our innovation, our trade secrets, [and] our intellectual property” knows no bounds, he noted.

Senior Administration Officials on the Release of Trevor Reed

04/27/2022 11:25 AM EDT

Office of the Spokesperson

Via Teleconference

MODERATOR: Thank you very much and good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining this call, and especially so on such short notice. We wanted to convene it promptly given the news that has emerged this morning regarding the release of Trevor Reed from Russian custody. We’ll do this call on background. You can refer to what you hear – you can attribute it to senior administration officials.

For your knowledge only and not for reporting, we have two senior administration officials on the line. We have . We also have on the line. Again, you can refer to both of them as senior administration officials.

With that, the call will be embargoed until its conclusion, and I will turn it over to our first senior administration official to start us off. Go ahead.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you so much, . I’m grateful to everyone for joining and I am particularly grateful to have good news to share this morning. Trevor Reed, a U.S. citizen, a former U.S. Marine detained for far too long in Russia, now has his freedom and he is on the way to being reunited with his parents.
It is a big moment and a moment that speaks to President Biden’s commitment to bring home Americans held hostage and wrongfully detained around the world. Let me put today’s news in some context and say a few words on how we got to this particular moment.

President Biden has been very clear since the beginning of the administration about his commitment to bringing Americans home. Very early in his tenure, Secretary of State Blinken spoke with a wide range of hostage and detainee families emphasizing the administration’s commitment in this area.

And day in and day out, the President’s National Security Council staff works on resolving these often very hard, always very important matters. That includes working closely with the remarkable Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs at the State Department. It also includes working closely with FBI and a wide range of other components of the federal government.

The commitment to resolve these matters goes right to the top – to the President, to the National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who has heard directly from and spoken directly with hostage and detainee families understandably eager to hear how their government is working to bring home their loved ones.

I would emphasize the President isn’t just committed; he is also delivering on that commitment. He has brought home Americans from Venezuela, from Afghanistan, from Haiti, from Burma, and now today from Russia. Trevor’s freedom is the result of months and months of hard, careful work across the U.S. Government. That includes negotiations on this discrete particular issue set with the Russians that have been going on for a very long time.

Ultimately, those negotiations led the President to have to make a very hard decision. It was a decision to commute the sentence of Konstantin Yaroshenko, a Russian smuggler convicted of conspiring to import cocaine. Now I want to emphasize here that this was a commutation of his sentence. The action in no way undermines or diminishes the import of the finding of his guilt. I also want to emphasize that Yaroshenko has already paid a steep price in the U.S. justice system for his crime. In fact, he had already served the majority of his sentence.

That all being said, this is a tough call for a president. But President Biden made it to bring home an American whose health was a source of an intense concern and to deliver on his commitment to resolve these hard cases and reunite Americans with their loved ones. And so Trevor Reed is on the way to be reunited with his loving family.

I suspect that when we get to questions, there will be questions about the operational or logistical details of getting this done, and I will offer warning in advance that I just won’t have much to say on that because we don’t comment on such things. But I can say that we are relieved and frankly delighted to be welcoming Trevor home, which is where he belongs.

I also want to emphasize that our work in this area continues. Even as we celebrate today’s good news, Paul Whelan is very much on our mind, still detained in Russia. So are others held in Russia, so are others held hostage and wrongfully detained elsewhere in the world. We on the President’s team will keep working these issues until they’re home, just as the President has pledged that we’ll do.

And I want to be very clear: This is a discrete issue on which we were able to make an arrangement with the Russians. It represents no change, zero, to our approach to the appalling violence in Ukraine. Let me just emphasize this again because it’s so important: The discussions with the Russians that led to this exchange were strictly limited to these topics, not a broader diplomatic conversation or even the start of one.
Now let me hand things over to my colleague , who is , an office that has helped to make today’s good news possible. , over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Hey, thank you, . Hey, everybody this is , as said. I’m .

Obviously, as said, the United States welcomes the release of U.S. citizen Trevor Reed, who has been wrongfully detained in Russia since 2019. I also want to emphasize what said, that this was a team effort. The President and his team over at the White House, the State Department, our office, but also all of you on the line here. The media coverage, the interest in Trevor Reed’s case and the ongoing case of Paul Whelan has been crucial to ensuring that the other – that the Russians knew our position and the President’s determination to get Trevor back.

So I just want to update that SPEHA Carstens met with Trevor upon his release from detention. He was in good spirits and he spoke to his family. While we celebrate the release of Trevor, we still have work to do. Unfortunately, we have another American citizen to get back. The President and Secretary Blinken have been clear about the need to see wrongfully detained U.S. citizen Paul Whelan released. And we won’t stop working on this until every U.S. national is detained anywhere in the world. And I just want to emphasize what said, that this is a longstanding effort – many, many months of discrete diplomacy, with certain milestones along the way, such as when the Secretary of State raised Trevor and Paul in Reykjavík in May, and then the President again in June, and then the intensive negotiations that followed.

So this is a good day. Thank you all for the broader team effort here. I’ll turn it back to at that point.

MODERATOR: Terrific. Operator, if you wouldn’t mind just repeating the instructions to ask questions.

OPERATOR: If you wish to ask a question, please press 1 then 0 at this time.

MODERATOR: Great. We will start with the line of Jennifer Hansler, please.

OPERATOR: Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thanks so much for doing the call. Can you just give us a little more details on the tick-tock of how this went down? I know you said months and months, , but specifically when did this start to gain real traction? How frequently was the U.S. meeting with the Russians? Who was meeting with the Russians to negotiate this? And how was this specific Russian prisoner and how was Trevor chosen out of the multiple Americans that are held there and the multiple Russians that are detained here? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, thanks for the question, Jennifer. So as we indicated, this conversation with the Russians on this particular issue, this discrete issue, has been going on for months. And we’ve acknowledged publicly that everyone from the President down, including the Secretary of State, as my colleague mentioned, have continued to raise at all levels with the Russian Government the importance – to us, to our President, to our government – of bringing home those who are wrongfully detained.

That conversation has, of course, included others whom we regard as wrongfully detained in Russia, and we’ll need to continue to include them so that they come home as well. Obviously, the conversations on this particular issue have accelerated recently to get us to this point. And one factor in getting to this point was our growing concern, which you’ve heard from the family publicly and which we share as a government, of what the status of Trevor Reed’s health was while in detention. That, I think, contributed to really ratcheting up the conversations on this issue, getting to a point where we were able to make this arrangement, getting to a point where we were able to turn to some of the logistics of simply getting it done. And of course, we are delighted that we have found a way to get it done, and we’ll continue to work on the cases that still need resolution.

MODERATOR: We’ll go to the line of Shaun Tandon.

QUESTION: So I know you said at the beginning that you don’t see this as leading to any greater diplomatic effort with Russia. Could I expand on that? In terms of the conversations that were there, did it give you an idea about the Russians being serious about this in particular, about anything broader? Was – were other countries involved in this, or was it truly a bilateral aspect?

And also, you mentioned that Trevor Reed, he seemed to be in good spirits. Can you just expand on that in terms of the condition that he’s in? Do you think that he’s – his state is good at this point? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I’ll say a couple words on this, and then I’ll see if Ned wants to add anything as well, or , on the last point there.

I would emphasize, as your question refers back to, that these conversations, these negotiations were on a discrete issue set. The discussions that led to today’s very good news were strictly limited to these topics, detainee topics. They were not part of broader diplomatic discussions; they were not the beginnings of discussions on other issues. We were delighted to see them come to fruition in this way, of course, but they are limited – they were limited and are limited to these particular issues.

Is there anything else you’d like to add on that?

MODERATOR: I think that’s a key point. I would just also add that this in no way will change our approach to supporting our Ukrainian partners and to holding the Kremlin accountable for its actions in Ukraine. But as my colleague has stressed multiple times, these topics weren’t broached. They were intended to be broached, these broader topics. This was about one thing and one thing only, and it was securing the release of an American who had been wrongfully detained in Russia for far too long.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Hey, I might just add also on the question about Trevor, he was in good spirits, as I said. But beyond that, out of respect to the privacy – to Trevor’s privacy and the privacy of his family, we’re going to let him and his family speak for themselves when they’re ready. It’s a good day, and he’s clearly in good spirits, but you’ll understand he’s had a difficult couple years here. So – and we ought to respect that as well. Thanks.

MODERATOR: We’ll go to the line of Humeyra Pamuk.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) doing this. I have a couple of questions. When do you expect Trevor to be home? And I understand that this was squarely – these discussions were squarely about him, but can you talk a little bit about the nature or, like, the demeanor of the Russians in these talks? Was there anything that was positive? Or what was it like that – was there anything that gave you any hope about a broader diplomatic thing? Because there are a number of channels all across the world for various reasons, but basically trying to put an end to this war – was there anything in these discussions that you thought could be a positive signal? And also, can you give us an update on Britney Griner’s case, please? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE:  Yeah, thank you for those questions. I’ll hit them briefly and then see if wants to embellish.

So on the first one, Trevor is on his way home, on his way to the United States now. I’ll stay away from kind of particular operational details, but he is on his way now, which we’re obviously delighted about.

In terms of the conversations with the Russians on these issues, look, we have been saying for the past couple months, few months that where we can on issues of mutual interest, on issues of importance to us, we will try to find ways to continue conversations and, ideally, to get things done. And I think this represents one of those categories – inaction, so to speak. It was an issue that we had been discussing. As I have indicated before, many months ago, we were able to keep discussing and obviously able to get to a result about which we’re very happy with respect to Trevor Reed and about which more work needs to be done for other Americans.

But I think being able to get to this point is consistent with what we’ve been saying about trying to find areas where we still can have a constructive conversation without in any way – as and I have both emphasized – without in any way representing through this any change in our approach to just appalling violence that we continue to see in Ukraine.
And then I’ll just say briefly on the last question that we are very aware that there are other Americans held in Russia with Whelan, Griner, and others very much in our minds today, even as we are so happy for the news about Trevor Reed. And we will continue to work on and attempt to find ways to address other cases as best we can.

Do you want to add anything to that?

MODERATOR:  The only thing I would add – and I would also invite my colleague to add on here – is that there is a key word in Roger Carstens’ title. He’s the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs. And so when Roger Carstens, when his team are having discussions with foreign governments, they’re discussing one thing and one thing only. They’re discussing hostages and Americans who are detained against their will unjustly overseas. These discussions didn’t give us any additional pessimism about Russia’s course in Ukraine, neither did it give us any additional optimism, precisely because there wasn’t a discussion of anything beyond this very discrete, this very particular issue. And that was the successful release – successful as of today – of Trevor Reed.

Do you want to add anything?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO:  Thanks, . You covered it right there.

MODERATOR:  We’ll take a final question here. We’ll go to Missy Ryan.

QUESTION:  What – I’m not sure what the limits of what you’re able to talk about in terms of the particulars of the transfers and all of that, but is the – Mr. Yaroshenko, is he now in Russian Government custody? Can you say whether this whole arrangement and negotiation involved any senior U.S. Government travel to Moscow? And also, could you just, if possible, clarify for us how many Americans are being held by the Russian Government? Obviously, you mentioned two individuals, but are there additional people that we should know about? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE:  Thanks, Missy. So as you anticipated, I’ll stay a bit general here, but I will say that Mr. Yaroshenko is in Russian custody at this point, and that we were able to make this arrangement without additional senior-level travel to Moscow or to Russia. And I think I’ll probably leave it at that. , anything you want to add?

MODERATOR:  Nope. I think you covered it.

Barring anything additional from you, we will bring this call to an end. Again, a reminder: This call was on background, attributable to senior administration officials, and the embargo is now lifted. Thanks, everyone, for dialing in. Thanks to fellow speakers.

United States Announces Additional Humanitarian Assistance for the Horn of Africa

04/27/2022 02:28 PM EDT

Ned Price, State Department Spokesperson

In Geneva at the High-Level Roundtable for the Horn of Africa Drought, the United States announced more than $200 million in additional humanitarian assistance for the Horn of Africa region. This funding will be used to respond to the humanitarian needs from the devastating drought and to address the needs of refugees, internally displaced persons, and people affected by conflict in the region. With this funding, the United States has provided more than $361 million in humanitarian assistance to the region since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2022.

This assistance from the American people will enable our international humanitarian partners to meet the humanitarian needs in the region, including the provision of food and nutrition assistance, health services, access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene, and general livelihood support.

We remain gravely concerned about the worsening humanitarian crisis in the region. Immediate, full, safe, and unhindered access for humanitarian organizations and workers is essential to provide timely, need-based assistance to those affected by the drought and the ongoing conflict, and to save lives.

We welcome the contributions of other donors toward this crisis response and urge others to generously support the immediate humanitarian needs created and exacerbated by this historic drought.

Gov. Reynolds released the following statement today in response to the legislature passing HF2128: 
  
“This is a historic win for Iowa families, for our agriculture and biofuels industry, and for Iowa’s entire economy. By increasing access to more affordable, homegrown biofuels made right here in Iowa, we are lowering the price at the pump and getting America back on track toward energy independence.  

“I am proud that my biofuels legislation will lead to the single greatest expansion of biofuels in our state’s history, while providing our industry with consistency in the face of ever-changing federal policy. I commend the legislature for working with me to advance this bill and I look forward to signing it into law in the coming days.” 

GALLUP: A Third of U.S. College Students Consider Withdrawing

About a third of U.S. college students report they have considered withdrawing from classes for a semester or more. Emotional stress is the most important reason they are considering doing so.

U.S State Department Press Briefing – April 26, 2022

04/26/2022 08:20 PM EDT

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

2:32 p.m. EDT

MR PRICE: Good afternoon. Welcome, everyone. To those with whom I’ve been traveling, welcome back. Welcome to everyone else. Welcome to those in the last row; I just want to call out – we have some members from, colleagues from our Operations Center who are here to observe today’s briefing. Obviously, our Operations Center is really a nerve center for the department. We were just saying that many of us literally could not do our jobs without the Operations Center. So appreciate them being here, and even more so appreciate the work they do every single day.

I have a couple things at the top, and then we’ll get to your questions. First, to meet the Secretary’s goals to modernize American diplomacy, win the competition for talent, and ensure that all applicants can present a full picture of their qualifications, the Department of State today is announcing improvements to the Foreign Service selection process.
The Department is moving away from the Foreign Service Officer Test as a pass/fail gateway test and expanding focus on a candidates’ education and experience for a more holistic approach in the selection process.

Starting with June the 2022 Foreign Service test takers, all candidates will proceed to the Qualification Evaluations Panel, or QEP, where their performance on the Foreign Service test will be one factor taken into consideration along with the personal narratives that they’ll submit during the registration process.

Combined with scores from the Foreign Service exam and the Qualification Evaluations Panel – which reviews each candidate’s work history, education, experience, and six brief written narratives based on Foreign Service core precepts – that will give the Department a more balanced view of candidates who will be selected for the next phase of the Foreign – of the selection process, the Foreign Service Oral Assessment.

This change is happening in the midst of what is expected to be the best year for Foreign Service intake in a decade. I think many of you saw the news earlier this month that we had the largest class of incoming officers, more than – just under 200 officers. And we expect this year to be the best year for our intake in a decade. It is the most significant change to the Foreign Service selection process since 1930, and we anticipate this change will result in a identifying a more qualified pool of applicants.

Next and finally, the United States is deeply concerned by the Tunisian president’s decision to unilaterally restructure Tunisia’s Independent High Authority for Elections, or ISIE. A genuinely independent election authority is critical, given its constitutionally mandated role in Tunisia’s upcoming referendum and parliamentary elections. The United States has consistently communicated to Tunisian leaders the importance of upholding the independence of key democratic institutions and ensuring Tunisia returns to democratic governance. We remain committed to supporting the Tunisian people in their democratic path and renew our call for an inclusive and transparent political and economic reform process with civil society, labor unions, and political parties represented at the table.

With that, happy to take your questions. Matt.

QUESTION: Thanks. Ned, just first briefly on the FSO testing thing. You’re aware that this is not being universally acclaimed, correct? That there is – particularly AFSA has registered some what seem to be some pretty significant concerns about this having been done without any input from them, without any other federal employee group, whether you want to call it a union or not. Will their concerns at all – do they matter at all?

MR PRICE: We are in a regular discussion with outside groups, including of course in this case AFSA. AFSA is an important organization. Their input is and will be especially valuable on these types of decisions. I am also aware, Matt, that the previous – or still the current – process also endured some criticism, given a narrow focus on a pass/fail Foreign Service exam that didn’t take into account the applicant’s holistic qualifications, what that person has done, that person’s educational experience, that person’s individual circumstances. We are confident that this restructured and revised process will help us select an applicant pool that is qualified, that is experienced, and that brings to bear the talents and diversity that this country offers.

QUESTION: Well, then why not eliminate the exam altogether?

MR PRICE: We still need various metrics to measure potential new colleagues against. So the Foreign Service exam will continue to be one such metric. But we’re going to look at a more holistic picture.
QUESTION: So would you – you would equate this to colleges and universities no longer requiring SAT or ACT scores for incoming students? Or how —

MR PRICE: Well, look. We are gratified that we have, and especially in recent months, received a tremendous amount of interest in this department. And with so many applicants, thousands upon thousands of applicants, we need various metrics against which to weigh applicants.

QUESTION: But the counterargument —

MR PRICE: So the SAT example is somewhat analogous. I’m not sure it’s a perfect comparison. But just as the SAT has done —

QUESTION: Well, it used to be that the test was administered by the same people as the SAT, back in my day, at least. But if you’re getting so many more applicants, wouldn’t you think that it would be more important to have a pass/fail on the Foreign Service exam rather than —

MR PRICE: We think —

QUESTION: — letting everyone go into the – everyone who takes the test, they all go – doesn’t that just bog the whole selection process down?

MR PRICE: Not at all. We think it is important, again, to be able to measure different aspects of a candidate’s qualifications. The Foreign Service exam will continue to be one input.

QUESTION: All right. On Ukraine – and I’ll be brief so my colleagues can go – two things. One is I realize that Secretary Austin spoke kind of about this earlier, but what you’re seeing in Moldova and Transnistria right now, does that give you any particular concern?

And then also, yesterday it came to light that the Russians had launched attacks on several train stations in the west of Ukraine, and I’m just wondering if there was any indication that you guys had that this might have been related at all to the two secretaries’ train journey into Kyiv and out.

MR PRICE: When it comes to Transnistria, Matt, you are right. The Secretary of Defense addressed elements of this this morning, but as I believe you’ve heard, we are aware of the explosions that occurred yesterday in Transnistria. We’re closely monitoring the situation as we determine what happened. We reiterate the Moldovan Government’s call for calm in response to these incidents. And we fully support, as you have heard us say before, Moldova’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. We respect its constitutionally guaranteed neutrality.

We don’t know all of the details beyond – regarding what transpired yesterday, but we do remain concerned about any potential attempts to escalate tensions. I would just reiterate that over the past – in recent weeks, certainly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, you have seen us demonstrate the partnership we have with Moldova in a number of ways. Some of you here in the room today were with us when we went to Chisinau with Secretary Blinken just a few weeks ago. We know that if left unchecked, Moscow’s aggression against – Moscow’s aggression could become a threat to the region. That’s why we’re not leaving Moscow’s aggression unchecked in Ukraine. It’s also why we are standing with our partners in the region, including all – our Moldovan partners.

Since February 24th, since Russia’s renewed invasion of Ukraine started, we’ve committed more than $30 million in humanitarian assistance to support the humanitarian response in Moldova – as you know, Moldova is generously hosting many Ukrainian refugees who have been forced to flee their homes – and $100 million in development assistance to strengthen Moldova’s long-term democratic and economic resiliencies. Our militaries work closely together, they cooperate in places as far off as Kosovo. We were, as I mentioned, just there a few weeks ago. And last week, we relaunched with Moldova our strategic dialogue, a dialogue that had been on pause for several years. Moldova is a strong partner. We are working to make sure that they have what they need to respond to the regional consequences of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

Yes, Andrea.

QUESTION: Hi, Ned. I want to ask you about Lavrov’s comments from last night to – not to underestimate their threat. And I know that Secretary Austin responded very briefly at Ramstein to this, but it’s the first time we’ve heard this from the Russians in quite some time. The last thing that we heard analytically was what Bill Burns said in Atlanta in his speech – we’re always ready. But in talking to Secretary Moniz today, he talked to me about the nuclear threat, which, as you know, he’s so deeply invested in. He said to me that the Russians have now turned nuclear deterrence on its head, using the nuclear threat against a conventional opponent that they have invaded rather than as it had been used for decades as mutually assured destruction against two nuclear powers.
So I’m asking more broadly about how concerned you might be as Russia may feel increasingly cornered in this next phase and as the weapons delivery is obviously so increased from the West to use tactical nuclear weapons. I also want to ask you a follow-up question about the trip.

MR PRICE: Sure, and let me start with that one first. So we have seen in recent weeks a pattern of bellicose statements. And whether you call them statements, whether you call them bluster, whether you call them propaganda, this has become a pattern. These certainly are provocative statements. We think they are deeply irresponsible. We deem them to be a continuation of the Russian Government’s very clear attempts to distract from its failure in Ukraine, to distract from the brutality that it is perpetrating on the Ukrainian people, to distract from its apparent unwillingness to negotiate in good faith, and to distract from its history against its neighbors.

They have at every turn sought to deflect responsibility for their actions by attempting to shift blame from where it resides – and that, of course, is with the Kremlin – to other parties, whether that is to Ukraine, whether that is to NATO, whether that’s to the West, whether that is to the United States. Director Burns referenced this, as you mentioned, in Atlanta. We’ve spoken to this before. We think loose talk of nuclear weapons, nuclear escalation, is especially irresponsible. It is the height of irresponsibility. And it’s a clear contradiction of what the Russian Federation has confirmed and reconfirmed on any number of occasions, including with the UN Security Council statement that emanated earlier this year, that a nuclear war can – must not be fought and can never be won. That is a statement we heard from Moscow during the Cold War. It’s a statement we heard from Moscow after President Biden’s meeting with President Putin last June. It’s a statement that Moscow signed on to earlier this year.

Now, that is not to say that even as we talk about this in terms of bluster, in terms of propaganda, in terms of provocative statements or bellicose statements, that we’re not paying very close attention and that we’re not thinking through various contingencies. We absolutely are. When it comes to potential nuclear escalation, of course, we are paying very close attention to Russia’s activities, to what it’s doing, to what it’s not doing. You’ve heard from the Department of Defense that we are always evaluating our own nuclear posture, and at this point we have determined that there is no reason to change our posture.

You said you had a follow-up.

QUESTION: Is there any – to any extent, do you think that Secretary Austin saying that our goal was to weaken Russia so that they can never again invade when you were in Poland or Secretary Blinken saying that Ukraine is winning and that Ukraine will be a sovereign, independent nation – I’m paraphrasing – long after Putin’s gone – was that in any way provocative or poking the bear or changing the mission to be not just helping Ukraine defend but helping Ukraine win with the heavier weapons as well? I noted today in the hearing that Senator Romney, while praising – fulsomely praising what has been done so far, said with the caveat of what Secretary Blinken had said, Secretary Austin had said (inaudible).

MR PRICE: I have to say I’ve been a little bit surprised by the surprise that I’ve heard expressed regarding Secretary Austin’s comments. This is a point that we have made for some time now. We have said for months that we intend to make this invasion a strategic failure for Russia. They have endured tactical defeats on the battlefield, they have lost the battle for Kyiv, they have lost a large number of Russian service members, Russian equipment. You look at Russians – Russia’s economy, Russia’s financial system, they are well on the path to strategic defeat.

And one of our goals in seeking to ensure this outcome has been to ensure that something like this couldn’t happen again, and that’s precisely what Secretary Austin was referring to. It is precisely what Secretary Blinken was referring to some six weeks ago. The middle of last month, as I recall, he did an interview with NPR, and he made a couple of points then. He said one of the things we’re doing is denying Russia the technology it needs to modernize its country, to modernize key industries – aerospace, defense, high tech, energy exploration. All of these things are going to have profound effects – not just the immediate effects we’re seeing, but increasing and growing over time. He went on to make a second point: We’ll want to make sure that they – Moscow – that – to make sure that anything that is done in effect is irreversible and that this can’t happen again, that Russia won’t pick up and do exactly what it’s doing in a year or two or three years.

So this is a point that we have consistently made, not only that this will be a strategic defeat for Russia, a country that has on an unprovoked, unjustified, brutal basis invaded its neighbor and that continues to rain down terror on its neighbor, but we’ve also made the point that we want Ukraine to win. And that is why we have a strategy that has these two principal prongs. Number one, we are doing everything we responsibly can to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty, its territorial integrity. We have contributed billions of dollars to this effort, more than $3.8 billion worth of security assistance since the invasion began, about $4.5 billion since the start of this administration.

And as I alluded to before, the other prong is what we are doing to hold Moscow to account. That includes the sanctions. It includes the export controls. It includes the visa restrictions. It includes everything that you’ve heard from us that places accountability on the decision makers who are responsible for this invasion in the first instance and all of those in their inner circle and the circles surrounding them who in some ways have supported this disastrous decision. And that is something that we will continue to do.
Yes.

QUESTION: Ned —

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Ned.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that before we change —

QUESTION: Could I follow up on —

MR PRICE: Let me do one follow-up, and Kylie, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, I have a follow-up too.

MR PRICE: Kylie, go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. I’m just curious. You said that Russia is well on the path to strategic defeat. Can you expand on that idea a little bit for us? Because you talked about them militarily not doing well and the hope that they won’t be able to invade Ukraine or another country again, but what does strategic defeat mean for the Russian economy, for Russia’s place in the world going forth, and some bigger ideas beyond the military?

MR PRICE: Well, that’s precisely what it refers to. You can talk about battlefield progress or lack thereof, and that, of course, is important when it comes to the fight for Ukraine’s freedom, its sovereignty, its territorial integrity. But when we talk about strategic defeat, we’re talking about Moscow’s positioning in the international system. And the Moscow that prepared to invade and that on February 24th went forward with its invasion will not be the same Russian Federation, in terms of its positioning on the world stage, that will emerge when this conflict is over.

And we mean that in a couple different ways. One, you can already see the toll on Russia’s economy and its financial system. It’s an economy that is forecast to contract by some 15 percent this year. It’s an economy that is losing hundreds, some 600 multinational companies that have made the choice to leave the Russian marketplace, either not wanting to in any way support President Putin’s war machine, or making the very strategic decision that it’s not a market that will be worth the investment either now or when this is over. You have seen what’s happened to the Russian stock market, to Russia’s currency. But you’ve also seen the toll that – and you will see over time increasingly – the toll that the export controls will have on Moscow’s ability to wield strategic influence on the world stage, and the way in which we are choking off key inputs to Moscow’s defense industry, its aerospace industry, its technology, its energy and oil and natural gas exploration capabilities.

All of those things, coupled with the pariah status that President Putin has on the world stage and the diplomatic isolation that Moscow has endured since – especially since the start of this invasion where it has seen itself handed really brutal defeats at the UN and be an object of scorn by the international community – all of those things add up to the simple fact that because of Moscow’s unprovoked, unjustified invasion against Ukraine, not only will Ukraine emerge sovereign and independent when this is over, but Moscow will emerge weaker. And we’re already seeing that, and many of these are tools that will have increasing effect over time.

QUESTION: Ned —

QUESTION: And just one quick follow-up on that. Moscow will emerge weaker for the long term, or when this war comes to a conclusion, will they be given the opportunity to rebuild themselves? Will you guys keep the sanctions in place, or will you take the sanctions off?

MR PRICE: So these are decisions that really are in Russia’s hands. Our sanctions – every sanction is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. And the end in this case, the near-term end, is seeing an end to this bloodshed, putting an end to this violence, bringing this war to a conclusion. So we’ve made the point that as long as Moscow escalates, we will escalate with our sanctions, with our economic measures. If Moscow changes its course, we will change our course.

Now, that’s not to say that there won’t have to be accountability. Of course, there will have to be accountability, and we’ve talked about various accountability mechanisms. We also want to see to it again, as the Secretary said some six weeks ago and Secretary Austin alluded to yesterday, that something like this, this type of aggression, can’t be repeated, whether that’s in days, weeks, or months, or years from the conclusion of these hostilities.

Said.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on this very point that you just mentioned, you said for weeks, months, for years, and so on – so you – this war can go on conceivably, I mean, to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia could go on for years? Is that what you’re saying?

MR PRICE: No, that’s not what I was referring to. What I was referring to is that we want to see to it that Moscow’s aggression, aggression of this nature, can’t be repeated once this conflict is over, whether that is weeks after the conflict ends, months after the conflict ends, or years after the conflict ends.

QUESTION: Yeah, but you keep saying that they are losing on the battlefield, yet they are controlling – they have controlled Mariupol, they are controlling the east, they are controlling the south and so on. It’s not exactly like a defeat. And the Russians, from their point of view, they say, we have good relations with China, we have good relations with India, and so on. Sure, they are a pariah in the West, but not among other countries. What’s your comment?

MR PRICE: Relations with no other country, even particularly large countries, will be able to replace what Moscow has lost and will have lost by its actions and the response that, together with dozens of countries across four continents, we’ve put in place. So no relationship, no set of relationships will be able to compensate for what Moscow will have lost and stands to lose.

To your first point, there is no denying, of course, that Moscow has a lot of firepower. They have demonstrated not only the capability but I think even more disturbingly a willingness to brutalize the Ukrainian people. Our goal is to see to it that this conflict, this war, Russia’s war against the people of Ukraine, is brought to a close as soon as can be achieved precisely to put this violence to an end, to put the bloodshed to an end, to put the brutality to an end as well.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR PRICE: Follow-up?

QUESTION: You mentioned diplomatic isolation. I get the sentiment, but as a matter of fact, the propaganda that we are talking about right now is being pushed during Russian leaders’ meetings with world leaders. UN secretary-general was in Moscow today, and Lavrov – some of statements that came out of Russia today in fact came during those meetings, and President Putin made a statement during his phone call with Erdoğan talking about already having Mariupol in his hands. My question is: Do you think the world leaders’ communications with Russian leaders should be precondition with getting out of Ukraine first before we communicate with you?

MR PRICE: We believe this war has to be brought to a close through dialogue and diplomacy, and we have consistently said that we support diplomatic efforts that are done in full coordination, in the first instance, with Ukraine. That’s most important because these are not choices that will be the purview of any other country, any other international organization. The Ukrainian Government, an expression of the will of the Ukrainian people, ultimately is going to have to be the entity that makes decisions that affect its country going forward.

So whether it’s the efforts of the Turkish Government, of the German Government, of the Israeli Government, of the French Government, of other governments who have used their good offices or offered their auspices for dialogue between the parties or attempted to shuttle between Russia and Ukraine, we support those efforts as long as they’re done in full coordination with our Ukrainian partners.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. Couple of questions about the secondary sanctions. This is something that the Secretary was asked today in the hearing at the Senate. As the leaked phone calls suggested yesterday, sanctioned Russian oligarch who is one of the major architects of this war, Mr. Yevtushenkov, and Georgia’s richest man, oligarch Ivanishvili, who controls the Georgian politics from the shadow, they are figuring out ways to bypass the sanctions and secure supply of vital grain products to Russia. Yevtushenkov himself confirmed the authenticity of this conversation in an interview with Georgian media.

Based on these leaked phone calls, David Arkhamia, who is a leading Ukrainian politician who chairs the negotiations with Russia, he appealed to the Western leaders to consider imposing personal sanctions on Ivanishvili and his assets in the West. Does the U.S. track or assess this phone call, this leaked phone conversation? Do you have any assessment of that? And what would be your response to that when it comes to, like, imposing secondary sanctions on those countries or institutions who are helping Russia or Belarus bypass these harsh measures?

MR PRICE: So I’m not in a position to speak to any purportedly leaked phone call or to confirm the authenticity or not of what you’re referring to, but a couple points. Not only have we leveled sanctions and other tools against those who are responsible for the Kremlin’s decision to go into Ukraine – those in Russia, those in Ukraine – but last week we announced a large tranche of sanctions against those responsible for facilitating sanctions evasion. And so sanctions evasion is something that we are taking a very close look at around the world, whether that’s in Russia, whether that’s in Belarus, whether that is anywhere else around the world. And I think our actions last week demonstrated that we will go after those networks, those entities, those individuals who are willfully, deliberately, systematically evading or helping others to evade these sanctions. Of course, I’m not in a position to preview sanctions on any individual or any specific entities, but it’s something we’re taking a very close look at.

Yes, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Ned. I have two questions on South and North Korea. North Korean —

QUESTION: Could I ask a Ukraine – one more Ukraine question?

MR PRICE: Sure. Before we go on to another region, we’ll take a couple of final Ukraine questions. We need to – Conor.

QUESTION: Sure. Secretary Blinken announced – excuse me – on Monday that the State Department would return some diplomats to Lviv this week. Can you confirm whether or not that has started today and if they successfully made the journey back to Poland today?

MR PRICE: I can confirm that. The deputy chief of mission and members of the embassy team traveled to Lviv, Ukraine today, where they were able to continue our close collaboration with key Ukrainian partners. Today they met with interlocutors from the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As Secretary Blinken announced yesterday, our diplomats are returning and have returned to Ukraine this week on a temporary basis.
Today’s travel was a first step ahead of more regular travel in the immediate future, and as we’ve said, we’re accelerating preparations to resume Embassy Kyiv operations just as soon as possible. We are constantly assessing and evaluating and re-assessing the security situation with a view towards resuming those embassy operations as soon as possible, again, to facilitate our support to the government and people of Ukraine as they bravely defend their country.

QUESTION: On Bridget Brink being finally nominated, what took so long? It’s been over a year into this administration. You said you’ve prioritized this relationship. Why did it take so long to get a nomination here?

MR PRICE: Well, the fact is that we haven’t had, unfortunately, an ambassador in Ukraine in several years now, and, of course, need not go into why we didn’t have an ambassador there in the first place. But there are processes, both within our government and coordination with the host country government – in this case, our Ukrainian partners – that are a prerequisite before we’re in a position to announce a nominee publicly. In this case, we’ve been gratified to hear of the reception to her nomination. Of course, we’ve heard a very positive response from our Ukrainian partners. And today, for those of you who were watching Secretary Blinken on the Hill, you heard again a very positive and welcome reception to the news from members of Congress, who we hope will be in a position to take up her nomination very shortly.

QUESTION: Ned, just to check on the Lviv thing. They – no one went in yesterday?

MR PRICE: Today was the first day.

QUESTION: Yeah, that’s not what I meant. For those people, but did anyone go in yesterday, on Monday?

MR PRICE: Today was the first day that we had embassy officers —

QUESTION: That anyone – well, okay. Embassy officers.

QUESTION: And they returned (inaudible)?

MR PRICE: Correct, correct. Yes.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PRICE: Let me take a couple – any – one more question on Ukraine.

QUESTION: Ukraine. Ukraine.

MR PRICE: Simon. Let’s move it around.

QUESTION: Yeah. The Secretary has spoken, including on the Hill today, about the war entering a different phase. And obviously this is something that was discussed in the meeting with Zelenskyy, with the other Ukrainian officials. In terms of what new weapons are required by the Ukrainians for this new phase, you’ve spoken about Howitzers, long-range artillery. Are there any other types of weaponry that they’re particularly asking for and that you’re considering giving any more sophisticated systems than that?

MR PRICE: Well, I think it – I would start by saying that we’ve already provided sophisticated systems directly or facilitated the provision of sophisticated systems directly in response to what our Ukrainian partners have been asking for. And it is a regular staple of our engagement with our Ukrainian partners that they update us on their particular needs, and those needs are different now than they were in the earliest days and hours of the invasion, because as you alluded to, Russia’s aggression is shifting from its initial ambitions to take the capital city, its initial ambitions to engage in successful urban warfare, to now the campaign for the south and the east. And so as Russia’s war aims have shifted, after they’ve been defeated in their initial aspirations, the nature of our assistance has changed as well in terms of the capabilities and the systems that we are providing them.

When Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken met with President Zelenskyy and his team in Kyiv on Sunday, there was a discussion of the battlefield and precisely what implications that battlefield holds for Ukrainian needs. You heard from Secretary Blinken in the aftermath of that that we had – we’re going to be in a position to provide hundreds of millions of dollars more in FMF, foreign military financing. This is separate and distinct from the presidential drawdowns that you’ve heard us put forward in previous weeks, but it is equally useful, and in many ways it gives our Ukrainian partners flexibility in terms of what it is that they are procuring from the United States for their defensive needs against this Russian aggression.

Secretary Blinken also announced more than $150 million or so in terms of ammunition. The Department of Defense has talked about the artillery, the systems that the Ukrainians have requested for the battle for the Donbas. And I’ll defer to the DOD to speak to that.

QUESTION: Question about the German tanks?

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Which is finally the Germans today agreed to send their tanks. Well, now according to Reuters, Switzerland is refusing to approve the re-export of the ammo needed for those tanks. Is there anything that the U.S. could do with Switzerland to try to smooth this out, given how long Ukraine has been waiting for the German weapons?

MR PRICE: Well, Germany has been an important partner, an important member of the coalition that we have put together not only in recent weeks but over the course of recent months. And we welcome Germany’s announcements over the course of months that it will increase defense spending, bolster defense capability and readiness; its announcement that it had halted the Nord Stream 2 pipeline; and its transfer of lethal assistance and now heavy weaponry to Ukraine. These bold moves we think will strengthen Germany’s role as a leader in global security in line with its diplomatic, economic, development, and humanitarian influence in Europe and around the world.
It’s not for us to speak to specific systems or assets or capabilities that any other country is providing, so I’ll leave it to our German allies to speak to what it is precisely that they’re providing, and I would have to refer you to the Swiss Government for any discussions between those two governments.

Yes.

QUESTION: Georgia participated in every peace mission and is a valuable NATO partner. Having this in mind, can Georgia get any tentative dates regarding its aspirations to become NATO EU member? We all have heard that it’s a consensus-based decision, but don’t you think the Georgian people and government deserve to know how much longer they need to wait instead of being told that it will happen someday?
And second question, please. You say you understand Georgia’s position very well, but it’s fact that there are both some opposition members inside of my country and also inside of my country who are trying to nudge Georgia toward a decidedly radical position on this. And this is happening in parallel to the ongoing Russian invasion in Ukraine. In our partner country, there was even talk of opening up a second front in Russia – on Russia, and this is being advised to a country that, together with Moldova, faces the greatest risk of renewed Russian aggression. As you know, 20 percent of my country is occupied of – by Russia. What objectives do you think this campaign for more radical stance and increased pressure on the Georgian Government serve? These have been, as I said, inside of my country and outside of my country. I mean opposition members. And this campaign is permeated with so much disinformation – the so-called secret recordings that are paraded as scandalous or exclusive (inaudible).

Thank you.

MR PRICE: Thank you. So on your first question, we have said for some 15 years now that we support Georgia’s NATO aspirations. We believe that NATO’s “Open Door” policy, it should be an open door for those countries that aspire to join the Alliance. We’ve also said that no outside entity can or should have a veto on any eligible country’s aspirations to join the NATO membership.

Now, as you alluded to in your question, the membership process, it is a process that is overseen by the Alliance. These will be Alliance decisions. They are a set of requirements that any aspirant country will need to fulfill before being eligible to be considered for full membership. But Georgia already is an important NATO partner. We have had close consultations with Georgia on the margins of NATO meetings.

And to your second question – and this bridges the two – we have consistently stood by Georgia and with the people of Georgia in their desire to be a free and sovereign people and a free and sovereign country. And over the years, from the earliest days of Georgia’s post-Soviet independence, we have now developed a strategic partnership between our countries. We work together towards our shared vision of a Georgia that is fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic family of nations and part of a Europe that is whole, free, and, we would hope, at peace. And this is a vision that takes hard work; it takes patience. It takes significant resources to realize. That’s why we have sought to do our part.

We have allocated almost $6 billion in assistance funds to Georgia. We’ve trained over 20,000 Georgian soldiers. We’ve sent over 6,000 people to the United States for cultural and educational exchange programs. We’ve helped promote economic growth, the rule of law, democratic governance, many other initiatives that are important to the Georgian people and their aspirations, but important interests of ours as well. And so we’ll continue to partner with Georgia on their aspirations, on their ambitions, and to protect what they’ve been able to achieve. Janne, I’ll go back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. On the North Korea – I have two questions also on North Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un mentioned the preemptive use of their nuclear weapons at a military parade in Pyongyang yesterday. Regarding Kim Jong-un’s emphasis on the use of nuclear force rather than dialogue for abandoning the nuclear program, how can you assessing the prospect for future dialogue with North Korea? And I have follow-up next question.

MR PRICE: Well, to start, your reference to Kim Jong-un’s speech yesterday at the military parade – we’re aware of what he said. It reiterates our assessment that the DPRK constitutes as threat to international peace and security and to the global nonproliferation regime. We have a vital interest – together with our allies and partners around the world, but especially those in the Indo-Pacific – to deter the DPRK, to defend against its provocations or its use of force, to limit the reach of its most dangerous weapons programs, and above all, to keep safe American people in the region, our deployed forces, and our allies, Japan and the ROK being two of them.

Our goal remains the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. As you’ve heard me say before and as recently as last week, we harbor no hostile intent toward the DPRK. We do remain open to engaging in diplomacy and dialogue with the DPRK with an aim of achieving progress towards that overall objective. But we also have an obligation to address the recent provocations that we’ve seen from the DPRK, including its two recent ICBM launches. We have an obligation to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions that are in place. Those are obligations that we’ll continue to work on very closely with our allies in the region, with our partners in the region, and with our allies and partners at the UN. And it goes without saying, of course, that our commitment to our treaty allies, Japan and the ROK, is ironclad and remains that way.

QUESTION: Second question: According to a recent exchange of personal letter between South Korean President Moon and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, in this letter North Korea contains preconditions for dialogue with South Korea. What is your assessment of the sincerity of Kim Jong-un’s personal letter?

MR PRICE: It’s not for me to assess the sincerity of anything that has come from the DPRK. What we’ve said before is that we support inter-Korean dialogue. We support anything that de-escalates tensions and that moves us closer towards our shared objective with the ROK, and that’s the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Joseph.

QUESTION: Thanks. Secretary Blinken was asked multiple times today about the Vienna talks and nuclear deal. He was – I mean, he used very intricate language multiple times when it came to the FTO designation and specifying the Qods Force. Can you give us any updates on where those are? Are there – is there anything scheduled, any meeting scheduled back in Vienna? And is that what’s holding up the deal right now? Is it the FTO designation on the IRGC or the IRGC-Qods Force?

MR PRICE: We don’t have any travel to Vienna to preview. We are in close contact with the EU coordinator, who continues to convey messages back and forth. We continue, as you heard me say just the other day – we remain hopeful that an agreement can be reached, but it can be reached only if Iran is prepared to conclude a deal without, for example, raising issues that are extraneous to the JCPOA. If that’s the case, we believe that we can achieve a mutual return to compliance of the JCPOA in fairly short order, and that remains our goal for a couple of reasons. You heard the Secretary speak to this today. It remains our goal principally, because President Biden has a commitment to see to it that Iran is never in a position to acquire a nuclear weapon.

And the fact is that while the JCPOA was in full effect from implementation day in early 2016 until May of 2018, Iran was verifiably and permanently prevented from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And again, when the JCPOA was in full effect, the breakout time – that is to say the time that Iran would require to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, if it chose to go in that direction – was about 12 months when the deal was consummated and fully in effect. Now – and the Secretary said this today – that breakout time is measured not in months but, unfortunately, in weeks. And that is something that is unacceptable to us as a long-term proposition. That is why we continue to see if we can reach a conclusion, a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA. But as we said, we are preparing equally for either world, a world in which we have a JCPOA and a world in which we are forced to seek other means to be faithful to the President’s commitment.
Now, the challenge is we’ve seen both of these worlds. We’ve seen what a world with a fully functioning JCPOA looks like – and again, that’s a world in which Iran is verifiably and permanently constrained from obtaining a nuclear weapon with a breakout time that is extended – and we’ve seen a world without a JCPOA. So this is not a thought experiment. Unfortunately, there’s been a real-world experiment when it comes to the utility of the JCPOA.

And in the world in which the JCPOA has been suspended, not only have we’ve seen Iran’s nuclear program gallop forward with the installation of centrifuges, the accumulation of nuclear material, various developments that would contravene the obligations under the JCPOA, but we’ve seen Iran that has acted with even greater impunity. We’ve seen an Iran that has enabled its proxies, that has supported malevolent groups and actors in the region. We’ve seen an Iran that has continued with its ballistic missile program. We’ve seen in Iran that has continued to be a deeply destabilizing force to the region.

We believe that if we are able to put Iran’s nuclear program back into a box, if we are able to contain what would constitute the greatest challenge we could face from Iran, the greatest challenge we could face in the region, that we will be more effective and better positioned to confront these other challenges that we face with Iran.

So there’s some distance yet to close. It’s unclear if we’re going to be able to get there, but it remains our assessment that mutually returning to the JCPOA would profoundly be in our interest. And we’ll pursue that mutual return as long as it remains in our interest.

QUESTION: Ned —

QUESTION: You mentioned yourself months ago that this wouldn’t be open ended. And I mean, talks have been going on for a little over a year. Granted, I mean, it’s not an uneasy agreement to reach, but I mean, surely – and you guys have also been saying that the breakout time’s a matter of weeks for now months. So I mean, how much longer are you guys willing to wait? Because it seems like Iran’s – has its demands, and they’re not backing down.

MR PRICE: Well, we’re going to test the proposition of a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA for as long as doing so remains in our interests. And the fact is that right now Iran’s breakout time, it is far shorter than we would like. Were we to reenter the JCPOA, and more precisely were Iran to once again be subject to the most stringent verification and monitoring regime ever negotiated, that breakout time would be extended. So as long as the nonproliferation benefits that a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA brings is better than what we have now, that will likely be an outcome that’s in our interest.

But again, we may not be able to get there, because a negotiation in this case, not only does it take two parties but there are multiple parties in this, and there are complex questions, some of which remain unresolved.

QUESTION: Ned, on this – and I’ll leave aside the argument that we could get into over whether everyone agrees that the JCPOA permanently and verifiably ended your nuclear potential – Iran’s nuclear potential. Leaving that aside, the Secretary seemed to suggest in his answers today that the State Department and the DNI had made a determination that the threat against former Secretary Pompeo and Special Envoy Hook from Iran continued, and that you are continuing to pay whatever amount it is per month for protection for them. Is that correct? Is that a correct reading of what he said?

MR PRICE: There is only so much I can say on this, but we have an obligation that we take very seriously to provide protection to former officials of this building who may be subject to a threat. Now I think you could understand why if someone were, in fact, subject to a foreign threat we probably wouldn’t want to speak to that publicly, so as not to spotlight something like that, to spotlight measures we might be taking to mitigate any such threat. But you heard this from the National Security Advisor on January 9th I think it was of this year. He issued a very clear statement.

QUESTION: Yes. But after that – and I remember that, and I appreciate the fact that he said that, but after that you guys notified the Hill that you were spending $2 million a month roughly for protection for these two former officials and also that a decision had to be made within the next – within 10 days of that notification of whether or not you were going to ask for more money to continue that protection. And it sounded to me, from what the Secretary said, that you had made that decision.

MR PRICE: We notify the Hill of many things that we’re not in a position to speak about publicly. Let me move around just – yes, please.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on Iran?

MR PRICE: Quick follow-up on Iran. Okay.

QUESTION: Very quick follow-up on Iran. The Israeli – the Times of Israel reported that Israeli officials are saying that the Americans have basically acknowledged the failure of the Vienna talks and you’re about to make that public in a very short order. Can you comment on that?

MR PRICE: My comment would be precisely the answer that I offered to Joseph just a moment ago, that we are going to pursue a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA as long as it remains in our national interest to do so.

QUESTION: So the Israelis in this case are wrong, exaggerating, that —

MR PRICE: It sounds like you’re citing a press report that’s citing anonymous Israelis, so oftentimes that is a recipe for information that may not be entirely accurate.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I —

QUESTION: One more Iran question?

MR PRICE: Okay.

QUESTION: Sorry. I just want to build off what Joseph was asking you. Can you just explain to us how the breakout time has remained weeks for months now? It seems to indicate that Iran has slowed down accelerating its program, has done it more slowly than you expected it to. Is that the case? Can you just explain how we’re in the same place we were in January, February?

MR PRICE: Well, the breakout time is an assessment. It’s an assessment based on our technical know-how. It’s an assessment that is based on non-public sources of information as well, so there’s only so much we can say on this. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Iranians are – or feel – constrained right now, in terms of their nuclear program, and that’s precisely why we are still testing the proposition of a potential mutual return to compliance, so that they are constrained by the JCPOA, the constraints that are conveyed by the JCPOA, in terms of centrifuges, in terms of amassing nuclear material, in terms of amassing heavy water, in terms of what all of that means for a potential breakout time.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. I have a quick question about China. Although Secretary Blinken mentioned today he would speak publicly about comprehensive strategy to deal with China, so the United States has published interim national security strategy and Indo-Pacific strategy already, which are focusing on China in some ways. So could you tell us, understand – could you help us understand what the difference between the incoming strategy and the ongoing strategies?

MR PRICE: So the Secretary did mention that he expected to have an opportunity in the coming days, coming weeks to speak in a bit more depth to our approach to the PRC. I think what you’re referring to when you mention our Indo-Pacific strategy – this was a strategy that Secretary Blinken laid out on a fairly memorable trip, for those of you who were with us, in Jakarta late last year, in December of last year.

And our Indo-Pacific strategy, as the name suggests, is focused on the broader region, is focused on principally our partnership with the region and our shared vision with and for the region. It’s a vision of a region that is centered on key elements.

First, advancing a free and open Indo-Pacific, in which problems are dealt with openly; rules will be reached transparently and applied fairly; goods and ideas, people will flow freely. Second, it’s about forging stronger connections within and beyond the region on a bilateral basis or on a multilateral basis, if you talk about the Quad, or stitching together our partnerships and alliances if you were to talk about, for example, an AUKUS. Third, it’s a vision that promotes broad-based prosperity for the region, again with us as a partner, knowing that the region is home to some 40 percent of global GDP. It’s a region of opportunity not only for the people of the region but also for the United States. It’s a vision that seeks to build a more resilient Indo-Pacific, resilience against COVID, resilience against climate change, resilience against shared threats. And finally, it’s a region in which we seek to bolster security, and there are any number of threats. And when it comes to our assessment, our system of alliances and partnerships is the most important tool we have when it comes to confronting those threats.

So it’s a vision principally for a broader region. We’ve talked about our approach to the PRC. We’ve talked about the multifaceted relationship we have with the PRC, but I know that the Secretary looks forward in the coming days to speaking a bit more about that.

QUESTION: Ned.

MR PRICE: Yes.

QUESTION: A quick question on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Ned, it’s been six months since the six organizations were designated as terrorist organization. I know I’ve asked you this question many times before, so please indulge me, so – and I know that you requested clarifications from the Israelis and you received that clarification. So are you satisfied that these organizations – these six organizations are in fact engaged in terrorist activities? Because their funding has been cut off, the European Union is looking at maybe – there has been experts today – UN experts that said they should be funded, there’s been no evidence that they have engaged in terrorist activity. What is your assessment after the Israelis responded to you?
MR PRICE: As I’ve said for some time now, Said, our Israeli partners have provided us with information regarding the basis for their determination. That’s information that we’re reviewing. It’s a process that can be lengthy because it’s a process that takes place not only here —
QUESTION: Six months – six months —
MR PRICE: — not only here in this building, but also across other departments and agencies across town.
I can say more broadly that we’ve made it very clear to our Israeli Government and Palestinian Authority interlocutors that independent civil society organizations in the West Bank and in Israel must be able to continue their important work. We value the monitoring of human rights violations and abuses that independent NGOs undertake in Gaza, undertake in the West Bank, undertake in Israel and elsewhere. And we strongly believe that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and a strong civil society are critically important to responsive – and to responsive democratic governance.
It’s also important to note that we have already designated – we long ago designated the PFLP as an FTO. They have been designated as an FTO since 1997. And we’ve not designated, as you know, any of the six NGOs that the Israeli Government did. It’s also important to note we haven’t funded these groups.

QUESTION: But the PFLP is one thing and these organizations is another thing altogether. I mean, I understand that you have designated the PFLP a long time ago as a terrorist organization. There is maybe a good reason for that, I don’t know. But on these six organizations, they have conducted themselves only in terms of human rights abuses, reporting on that, doing civil society organization and so on.

MR PRICE: That’s something we’re looking at.

QUESTION: Ned, on Israel, presumably you’ve seen these very lengthy regulations that were dated February but apparently take effect in May for entry – entry by foreigners into the West Bank?

MR PRICE: I’m not immediately familiar with them, but if we have a reaction, we’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Yeah, because it would require foreigners of any nationality to get prior approval from Israeli military officials at the embassy where they’re applying for a visa before they can even present themselves for entry into the West Bank. So yes, I’d be very interested in any reaction you have, and also if this will have any impact on the visa waiver negotiations, because as you know, one of the main sticking points in that has been the treatment of Palestinian Americans. Thank you.

MR PRICE: Thank you. Simon.

QUESTION: I just wanted to try and clarify something. You – the Indo-Pacific strategy that you were mentioning, I think the exchange that took place in – on the Hill earlier, the Secretary was being asked about a formal national security strategy on China, and your response just now – you seemed to suggest he will address this issue in coming weeks, but there isn’t a separate strategy for China that’s forthcoming. Can you just clarify? He’s going to address something in coming weeks but it’s not going to be a new strategy?

MR PRICE: The question was how remarks on the PRC might be different from the Indo-Pacific strategy that we – that the Secretary explained in December of last year. And so my answer was the fact that that was a regional strategy. It wasn’t about any one country. It was about our partnership with the region and our bilateral relationships with the countries of the region and the relationships we have bilaterally and multilaterally with blocs in the region as well.

QUESTION: So the Secretary will detail a specific strategy for China?

MR PRICE: The Secretary looks forward to speaking more about our approach to the PRC in the coming days.

A very quick final question, yes.

QUESTION: Yeah, actually two questions on Ukraine. First, to clarify on what you just said in your response to Conor’s question on embassy, you mentioned traveling. Are the diplomats going back out and forth? Is it like day-long trip? Do you have any timeline on when the embassy in Kyiv will be restaffed? And my second question after this.

MR PRICE: They are making, for the time being, day trips into Lviv. That first day trip started today. As I said before, we are accelerating planning to re-establish a diplomatic presence in our – at our embassy in Kyiv. It is something we want to do as soon as it is responsible for us to do so.

QUESTION: Awesome. And second question on the last weekend’s meeting. There are reports that Zelenskyy handed over a plan to strengthen sanctions. It’s about ramping up sanctions against Russia and enablers. Any – are you in a position to confirm those reports?

MR PRICE: Well, I think there are reports because in the Ukrainian Government readout, it said that President Zelenskyy handed over a document regarding the Yermak-McFaul International Expert Group on strengthening sanctions. So sanctions enforcement, the next step in our sanctions against Russia and those who are enabling the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine, that certainly was a topic of discussion, and we’ll continue to coordinate closely with our Ukrainian partners on that.
Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:32 p.m.)

ABC NEWS:

Dr. Birx says she became “paralyzed” when former Pres. Trump raised the possibility of injecting disinfectant into people to treat the virus.

Gov. Kim Reynolds and Lt. Gov. Adam Gregg released their public schedule for the week of Monday, April 25, 2022 – Sunday, May 1, 2022.  

The following events are open to credentialed members of the media:  

Monday, April 25 
Lt. Governor Gregg speaks at National History Day 2022 State Award Ceremony 
Iowa Events Center 
730 3rd Street 
Des Moines, Iowa 
5:00 p.m. 

Tuesday, April 26 
Governor Reynolds and Lt. Gov. Gregg hold press conference with Meals from the Heartland at Unite for Ukraine meal packaging event 
Ron Pearson Center 
5820 Westown Pkwy. 
West Des Moines, IA 
10:30 a.m. 

Wednesday, April 27 
Governor Reynolds signs Soil and Water Conservation Week Proclamation 
Site of Conservation Project 
E. 35th St. & Hull Ave. Intersection 
Des Moines, IA  
10:00 a.m.  

Thursday, April 28 
Governor Reynolds and Lt. Gov. Gregg attend Annual ROTC Governor’s Cup Award Ceremony 
Ray Conference Room 
Iowa State Capitol 
Des Moines, IA 
10:00 a.m. 

Governor Reynolds attends NAWBO Iowa 2022 Celebration of Excellence 
DMACC FFA Enrichment Center 
1055 SW Prairie Trail Pkwy. 
Ankeny, IA 
12:00 p.m. 

Governor Reynolds attends Pi515 Girls Entrepreneurship Summit 
Mainframe Studios – The Big Room 
900 Keosauqua Way 
Des Moines, IA 
5:00 p.m. 

Lt. Governor Gregg speaks at Iowa Newspaper Association Awards Banquet 
Des Moines Marriott Downtown 
700 Grand Ave 
Des Moines, Iowa 
6:15 p.m. 

Sunday, May 1 
Governor Reynolds and Lt. Gov. Gregg attend Governor’s Scholar Recognition Ceremony 
Iowa Events Center 
730 3rd St. 
Des Moines, IA 
1:00 p.m. 

GALLUP:

Biden Job Approval Stuck in Low 40s

President Joe Biden’s job approval rating averaged 41.3% during his fifth quarter, the second-lowest for an elected, post-World War II president.