James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
3:58 P.M. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. It's a busy day here, I would say.
Okay. Today, as you all know, we announced new actions to cut healthcare costs through the Affordable Care Act.
Thanks to President Obama and President Biden, America is more covered than before and well on its way to finally treating healthcare as a right and not a privilege. This — thanks to the steadfast leadership, America is better off — of both of them — than it was 12 years ago.
Through today's proposed rule to fix the "family glitch," we'll expand access to 200,000 uninsured Americans and reduce costs for nearly 1 million Americans.
This is no small feat. This will make for the most significant administrative action to improve implementation of the Affordable Care Act since its enactment.
Outside experts have said this action is the boldest thing we can do to expand coverage without congressional action.
Already, nearly 6 million Americans have gotten access to affordable healthcare through President Biden's work to expand access to healthcare.
And with congressional action, we can build on the monumental progress we've made to date to expand coverage and cut costs for Americans by making the — the healthcare component in the American Rescue Plan permanent. And, of course, the 12 states that have not expanded Medicaid could certainly choose to do that as well.
With that, Zeke — oh, let me just note too: All of you know Angela. But for those of you who don't know Angela, she is one of our press assistants. She went to Georgetown. I did not get into Georgetown. So, she's very smart, obviously. (Laughter.) She's also the funniest person on the team. And she's amazing and incredible, and I just wanted to call her out today too.
You all know Vedant. I've already done this — I've done this around Vedant. (Laughter.)
So, cheers for Angela for everything she does. (Applause.)
Okay, Zeke. Sorry to — sorry to get you off track there. Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Jen. Administration officials said that, tomorrow, the President is going to extend the student — pause on student loan repayment for another three months through August. That would put it — restarting a couple of months before the midterm elections. Is that a — is the President willing to sort of end that pause and have borrowers need to make payments that close to a midterm election?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I — to not get too ahead to where you are, at this point in time, it expires in May. Obviously, we'll have a formal announcement to make before that timeline. I don't have anything to preview at this point in time.
Obviously, we look at and assess what the needs are for the people who are impacted by the payment of student loans as we make these assessments.
I would note that no one has been required to pay a single dime of federal student loans since the President took office. And, of course, the Department of Education will continue to communicate directly with borrowers about federal student loan repayment and servicers as we make this final decision.
Q On a different topic — we've heard a lot from the administration about the lack of international COVID relief funding for vaccinations. Does the President believe that without this money, he can meet his pledge to the world (inaudible) global vaccine sharing? And does he have to recalibrate now that Congress seems unwilling to provide the necessary funding to get there?
MS. PSAKI: Well, no, we can't meet our commitments and cannot continue to be the arsenal of vaccines to the global community. Without global funding, USAID won't have resources to get more shots in arms, we'll be forced to scale back our work providing oxygen and antiviral pills, and we will lack the funding to provide rapid testing to countries in need.
It's not just about vaccine doses, of course — I know that's kind of the question you asked — ot's also about providing the know-how and the individuals at times, the training to be able to get shots in arms. And those are programs that we fund through our global efforts as well. And we need that funding in order to continue these programs.
Q And just lastly from me: General Milley had some pretty sobering testimony on the Hill today regarding the state of the world, sort of a grim outlook, saying that "the potential for significant international conflict…is increasing, not decreasing." Is that an assessment the President shares? And is that sort of the assessment of the U.S. government on, sort of, the state of the world right now is darker than it was when the President took office?
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly the — General Milley speaks for the assessment of the U.S. military, and I think that's what he was testifying on, and, you know, he speaks on behalf of the administration.
Go ahead.
Q General Milley also said that he thinks the war in Ukraine will be measured in years; that this will be a long, protracted conflict. Can you clarify? Do you mean that the ground war will be lasting years? And is the U.S. committed to aiding Ukraine for as long as this drags on?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we're certainly committed to continuing our historic support of Ukraine, whether that is military assistance, humanitarian assistance, economic assistance.
Without further parsing General Milley's words — and, certainly, I would point you to the Department of Defense and to him directly — I think we also understand that the recovery from this war, the rebuilding in Ukraine — people who have lost their homes, communities that have been destroyed — is going to take some time, and the United States will certainly continue to be a part of that.
Q And President Zelenskyy, today, effectively asked, you know, what's the point of the U.N. Security Council if they can't find a way to hold Russia accountable, given Russia's veto power? He suggested the Council was powerless and outdated. Does he have a point? And does the White House think the Security Council needs to be reformed? And is that even possible?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think he's certainly referring to — obviously, he can speak for himself — but his frustration, which we share, that Russia is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. We don't see that changing.
And so what our objective is at this point in time is on a couple of fronts. One is to continue to provide a range of security assistance to Ukraine — directly to Ukraine, to the military that is serving boldly and bravely on their behalf.
I can provide you a little bit of an update on that. That, in addition to the deliveries of the $200 million package announced on March 12th — which are almost complete — deliveries of the $800 million package the President announced on March 16th are actively occurring. And, obviously, the Department of Defense has also announced a range of equipment that is being provided.
I'd also note that there are a range of mechanisms as it relates to accountability. And, you know, that relates to the President's strong statements about his view and belief that Russia and President Putin are guilty of war crimes and, obviously, the atrocities that have taken place. And they are not necessarily through the U.N. mechanisms. And there are obviously challenges to that, given Russia is a permanent member.
But there are ample examples in the past of other international bodies, and we will continue to support those efforts as well.
Q And just one more. The sanctions that are coming tomorrow — being announced by the U.S. and European partners — are expected to in part target Russian government officials and their family members. Is this also expected to include Putin's daughters?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have more specifics to detail or preview for you at this point in time. It is expected — or you can expect, I should say, as many of you have reported, that they will target Russian government officials, their family members, Russian-owned financial institutions, also state-owned enterprises.
It's a part of the continuation of our efforts to put consequences in place, hold — hold Russian officials accountable.
And, again, those announcements will be made tomorrow.
Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Jen. Secretary of State Blinken earlier today said that the killings in Bucha are not a random act by a rogue unit but that it is a deliberate campaign by Russia to commit these atrocities. But he did not offer any evidence the U.S. has to back up this claim. I'm wondering if the White House can share any evidence to that effect?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what the Secretary was referring to is the fact that we have predicted and laid out very clearly the intention of President Putin and the Russian military to commit atrocities. That's what they have done. We have seen with our own eyes what they have done. That is consistent with but a little different from a question about a process, which is a process that would take place on the — through an international mechanism, on — to have a review or have a investigation into war crimes. That is a process that we would certainly be supporting — supporting in a range of ways.
But what he was speaking to is the fact that we had predicted it; what we predicted has unfortunately happened. And we've only seen, potentially, the tip of the iceberg because of where we have had access to. We have not acc- — had access to an expanse of the country where they have likely also committed atrocities.
Q Thank you. And one quickly on sanctions. We've sort of increasingly seen evidence that Russia is turning to China to circumvent Western sanctions. We just had a report that Reuters said today about Russia turning to China for microchips. They're also — they have a payment card that they have now issued in conjunction with China's UnionPay, which is an alternative payment system, as you're aware.
And I'm wondering if what is going to be announced tomorrow will, you know, have anything to do with making China comply with Western sanctions. I mean, if you can — if you can speak to that.
MS. PSAKI: That continues to be not just our expectation, but what we've conveyed directly. But these sanctions are related to Russia.
Go ahead.
Q First, on sanctions: Last night, the Treasury Department shifted their general licenses a little bit in terms of payments —
MS. PSAKI: Yeah.
Q — from foreign reserves in U.S. institutions. Is it fair to say that the goal right now is to have a sovereign default with Russia in terms of how you want to impose costs?
MS. PSAKI: The goal is to force them to make a choice. So, Russia does not have unlimited resources — especially now, given the crippling sanctions we've put in place — and they are going to be forced to choose between draining remaining valuable dollar reserves or new revenue coming in or default.
Part of our objective here — the biggest part of our objective here is to deplete the resources that Putin has to continue his war against Ukraine. And, obviously, causing more certainty — uncertainty and challenges to their financial system is a part of that. But it is forcing them to choose those options and to also deplete the resources, making it more difficult for him to continue to fight the war.
Q Longer term — Jake yesterday said something along the lines of, "This is not the time for complacency." I understand the alliance that's been put together over the last six months doesn't have a lot of precedent. But how real is the concern that if this is protracted — if this is months, not weeks — that fractures could end up coming to pass in the alliance you guys have put together?
MS. PSAKI: We have been very clear-eyed about that possibility from the beginning, which is why there has been so much effort on the diplomatic front to work at it, including, obviously, the President's trip to Europe. Secretary Blinken is on his way, or maybe he's there now, in Europe. There are calls that happen every single day, through nearly every national security official, to continue to work towards that coordinated unity that has been so effective to date.
It is also true, though, that "unity" does not mean "identical." And as we're looking at the consequences people are putting in place, the actions they're taking, our expectation is not that it is identical. It is just our effort to do everything we can to make sure it's coordinated and it's unified as it possibly can be.
Q And then, last one real quick. I think you addressed it yesterday, so I apologize. But when you talk about the bridge, from the SPR perspective —
MS. PSAKI: Yeah.
Q — is it a bridge to — do you believe the domestic industry will be able to fill that gap within the next six months? Or is it a bridge to domestic plus Canada plus the Middle East? How are you guys see what that is a bridge to in terms of production?
MS. PSAKI: A combination, I would say, Phil. As you know, the oil market is a global market. And we certainly understand and have seen that, obviously, the actions of President Putin has led to an increase in gas prices, not just here in the United States but in other countries in the world.
We also know that as other countries make decisions about energy sanctions, that could have an impact on the amount of supply in the marketplace.
So we are taking steps that — obviously, a historic release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next six months — to hopefully give a bridge to domestic — increase domestic production, to your point, which we know could take a little bit of time.
But also, during that time, we're also working with other countries around the world. You saw the announcement many of them made last week about their increased releases, but also to see what they can do to increase their supply into the marketplace as we're filling that gap.
Go ahead, Weijia.
Q Thank you, Jen. Today, Secretary Blinken also said that the U.S. was continuing to gather evidence and will continue to support Ukraine and the U.N. Human Rights Council as it relates to a possible war crime trial.
I know yesterday Jake said the U.S. was looking at a variety of mechanisms. But since the U.S. is not party to the ICC, other than a supportive role, what can it do to facilitate a trial?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me give you an update on where we are. And I would also — let me first point to the fact that, historically, we have provided evidence to the ICC even though we are not a party member.
So if you look back in 2004, the State Department collected evidence indicating that the Sudanese military and militias were committing specific acts of violence against members of non-Arab groups in Darfur. And the Secretary of State at the time, Colin Powell, determined that what was happening was a genocide, and we worked with ICC and the U.N. Security Council to hold accountable. So I would just note there is historic reference.
Now, also, as you're thinking about the timeline of this, the historic reference for that is also important because that liter- — that was 2004, and it is just starting now. So, it takes time.
Now, it doesn't always take that amount of time. But just — you know, as you're looking at the history here.
But right now, there are a number of efforts already underway to hold any Russians accountable for atrocities and war crimes.
Over the past few weeks, we established investigations through the U.N. Human Rights Council and the OSCE of possible violations by Russia. We're also supporting the work of the war crimes unit under the Office of the Ukrainian Prosecutor General and a team of international prosecutors who are working with them, and also supporting Ukraine's authorities and civil society organizations who are working on the ground to document atrocity crimes for prosecution.
And we also welcome the investigation opened by the ICC Prosecutor, in particular his focus on preserving evidence of possible atrocity crimes.
And as you noted, Jake outlined the specific ways that we can help in those efforts, including through intelligence sources, and gathering and sharing that with our partners, including helping Ukrainians and what they're doing on the ground to develop their case. Third is working through international organizations. And the fourth, as he noted yesterday, is all of you and the range of important reporting and sharing of images and information gathering that's happening out there.
But those are the different — different options and different mechanisms we're working through now. But it has not yet been determined what the international mechanism is.
Q And you mentioned that's going to take a lot of time. It seems that you've also indicated that every sanctions package is not meant to be an on and off switch to stop Putin — that that will also take time. Is there anything that can be done to stop Putin now, in the immediate?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say first, on sanctions, we have a couple of objectives. One of them is to put consequences in place, put a marker down and make very clear it's absolutely unacceptable, horrific, and there should be consequences.
The second is to make it more difficult to fund the ongoing war. And that is a very important component. And the question Phil asked earlier — about the bond payments and the bond payment that is due — is an example of that and the mechanisms we have through our economic resources to do exactly that.
And the third is to make clear and make it evident to President Putin and Russian leadership in the world that he is a pariah, and now is — and will be held accountable and treated in that way on the global stage.
But what we're — what we feel is the most effective thing we can do now, in addition to that, is to continue to provide military assistance, security assistance, equipment on the ground.
I would note, again, the Department of Defense announced a series of additional military pieces of equipment that they had not priv- — previously delivered that they were delivering to the ground. And we are focusing that effort on ensuring it is equipment that the Ukrainians are trained on and that they have already been using effectively in this war to fight the Russians.
Go ahead.
Q And just to follow up on Weijia's question, you guys are adding more sanctions, saying that the sanctions are going to take time to have an impact. How much time do you guys think that these innocent Ukrainians have?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what's important to note here is sanctions are just one component of the tools that we have at our disposal. What we are doing and we're already seeing effectively happen is the financial system in Russia is near the brink of collapse. I mean, they're projecting 15 percent inflation — a contraction of 15 percent — in their economy. Private sector businesses are pulling out of the country.
It is more and more difficult for President Putin to fund this war every single day. That has an impact.
But what we're also doing is providing a historic amount of military and security assistance, which is what they've been using effectively over the last few weeks to fight this war and push back the Russians.
Q But do you guys assess that anything you've done so far has prevented a war crime from happening?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Peter, I would say that everything we're doing to date is to support the Ukrainians in this war and in this effort. And that is something the President is proud of, we are proud of, including rallying and leading the global community and standing up against Russia.
Q Okay. On another topic: A lot of stories about Hunter Biden surfacing this week. So, to ensure the independence of the investigation, would the President support the appointment of a special counsel?
MS. PSAKI: Well, first, the President has never had a conversation with the Department of Justice about any investigations into any member of his family. He said that during the campaign, and he will continue to abide by that. So, I would point you to the Department of Justice for any additional steps they would take. They would make those decisions independently.
Q Is there any concern that they're not going to be necessarily seen as being able to make the decisions independently if the White House Chief of Staff is out saying that the President is confident his son did not break the law?
MS. PSAKI: Well, that's something the President has said and certainly we would echo. But in the same answer to that question, Peter — during an interview this week on ABC, Ron Klain also said the Justice Department is independent and they will make their own decisions.
Q And the President has said that he never spoke to his son about his overseas business dealings. Is that still the case?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
Go ahead.
Q So, tomorrow, you're going to announce — the White House is going to announce new sanctions. The administration will have new sanctions on Russia in some form. Should we view those sanctions as a response to Bucha? Or how should we view those when they're announced?
MS. PSAKI: Well, unfortunately, the photos — the horrific photos we've seen from Bucha are not the first violation of war crimes or atrocities that we've seen take place on the ground. So, in part, yes. But they have been in the works and part of our process of putting in place consequences.
Q Which is to say there may be more? Should we anticipate more in terms of reaction to Bucha? This wouldn't be in isolation?
MS. PSAKI: Correct. We are continuing to assess and make decisions additional consequences and steps we can put in place.
Q So, given these awful videos and pictures we're seeing of the atrocities that took place in Bucha right now. Is the U.S. policy still one of no regime change in Russia? And if so, why should someone like Vladimir Putin be viewed by the U.S. as someone who should be allowed to stay in power?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think our policy is: No, we are not calling for regime change. And that has not been our policy and continues not to be our policy.
But again, Peter, our view is that he is a war criminal, and he is somebody who should be looked at by the international system who evaluates war crimes.
Q I guess the question — people say, "Then why not? If he's a war criminal, why should he be allowed to stay in power?"
MS. PSAKI: Well, our policy is not to call for regime change. We're not calling for regime change. But again, he is somebody who's committed atrocities against the people in his country; he's a pariah in the world. And every step we've taken has made that clear to the global community.
Q Very quickly, can you pull back the curtain on what happened upstairs when we weren't watching between the former President and the current President over lunch? Did they talk about Putin, Ukraine? Did they do a tour of the Residence? What can you tell us about their time together?
MS. PSAKI: You know, I haven't had a chance to download yet with the President. I did see the former President briefly, but his schedule is a little lighter than the current President's these days.
I do know that they had a great, expansive conversation. I haven't downloaded on the specifics of it yet. I'm not sure I'll be able to share those with all of you. They did go take a look at the Oval Office and take a walk around. And I know they enjoyed spending time together.
Go ahead.
Q Just to put a finer point on some of the questions you, so far, have been asked: Why shouldn't the images of the atrocities from Bucha compel a worldwide, unified coalition kinetic response?
MS. PSAKI: You mean a military war? Tell me more about what you mean.
Q Sure. A military response led by the United States and the international partners.
MS. PSAKI: As in bringing military troops on the ground from the United States and NATO?
Q Well, the President has described "outrageous" things. You've called them atrocities. You've said, perhaps "we should brace ourselves" for worse. Why not?
MS. PSAKI: I think what the President's objective is and his responsibility is to make decisions that are in the interest of the United States and the national security of the United States and the American people, and that is not to go to war with Russia. It is to do everything in our power to hold them accountable; to support efforts through international systems to do exactly that; and to provide military assistance, security assistance, and support to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government. That's exactly what we're doing.
But it is not in our interest or in the interest of the American people for us to be in a war with Russia.
Go ahead.
