MS BRUCE: Thank you, everyone. How are you? I looked up at a couple of my briefings and noticed that I looked a bit too much like peat bog man, so I got a haircut. (Laughter.) It’s funny when you look and you’re so busy and you look around and I thought, oh, this has got to be a little bit better. So that’s what I’ve done.
All right, thank you very much for joining us. Another full room, and I appreciate that very much. Lots going on, obviously. Let’s start, though, with an announcement that many of you know already.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to Jamaica, Guyana, and Suriname March 26th through 27th to advance President Trump’s foreign policy priorities in the Caribbean. While in Jamaica, the Secretary will hold bilateral engagements with heads of state from Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and Haiti. Secretary Rubio’s engagements with our valued Caribbean partners will promote regional cooperation and which is we’re working on, of course, to end illegal immigration, counter transnational organized crime, strengthen regional actions to address Haiti’s political and security challenges, and strengthen the United States economic partnership with Caribbean countries.
And that’s my announcement. We’re going to be doing that starting on Wednesday. A number of you are going to be joining us in what for the Americans and people around the world watching, we have reporters who are stationed here at the State Department, and their coverage, their beat, is the State Department, and they even travel with us. And that’s always fun, so I’m looking forward to that once again.
And we will start, dare I say, with Matt Lee.
MS BRUCE: With the Associated Press.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Tammy, and thanks for the trip announcement.
QUESTION: So over the course of the last day or so, embassies and consulates around the world appeared in what looks like it’s a concerted social messaging campaign, have been posting tweets and Facebook accounts, some of which are somewhat aggressive and warning people not to come to the United States if they are planning to protest or cause riots or break laws. My question is this: Because it has always been an offense to not truthfully answer questions on a visa application form, which include your past and what your intents are, what you plan to do in the U.S., it has always been an offense that you could be – have your visa revoked or deported if you are found to be lying on this. I’m curious why it is that there is this —
MS BRUCE: We should hire you. A very good explanation.
QUESTION: — coordinated effort – (laughter) – coordinated effort to get this message out now, in some cases using this kind of aggressive language like, you lie to us, you’re out, that kind of thing.
MS BRUCE: Well, I think that it’s clear that it’s a conversation that has not been happening for a while. Certain issues are in the news right now. It’s an important – there’s a lot of new things that the world is hearing from a new administration, the Trump Administration, which is in office because of its commitment to make America great again, certainly safe again, secure again, more prosperous.
The Secretary of State, obviously, as you’ve heard quite often, has remarked on that. And part of that is what Americans see and what has been happening over the last several years when it comes to certain violence, certain attitudes, a rise in antisemitism, and of course, in some public cases which I won’t be speaking on. But for citizens who – of other countries who want to come to America, I think it’s reasonable their own countries – there are certainly some countries which are reminding their citizens that if you are going to be going to the United States, or really the argument could be to any other country, is follow the law, behave yourselves, be a good visitor, and you’ll be fine.
But I think the nature of any kind of warning or reminder, as it should be, as you noted, is appropriate considering the nature of the things we have been reminding people about, which is a visa is not an entitlement; a visa and a green card are not birthrights. These are privileges. You are granted them because of what you present to the United States in trying to get it. Consular officers also talk with people and they ask you questions about why you want to come. Every sovereign nation in the world has an interest in controlling who comes in, knowing who’s coming into their country, what their intentions are. We’ve learned this over the last several decades about the importance of security at points of entry. The world knows it and so do we, and it is a good reminder, and we look forward to people taking it seriously.
All right. Yes, Andrea Mitchell.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Tammy. I know the administration has always been concerned about operational security for military actions and others, things that are classified. There has been an unprecedented, to my experience, breach of operational security by a public dissemination on Signal of plans for the Houthi attacks and discussions about those plans that included in – and has been confirmed by the National Security Council – these included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, on this Signal chat over a course of several days. And we should note that Mr. Goldberg did not publicize any of the classified members, CIA people, who were on this chat, nor any of the classified information on the ultimate day two hours before the attacks took place. He thought he was being punked, that it was some sort of a trap, but eventually notified the White House about this, and the White House has confirmed that it’s authentic. Secretary Rubio was part of all of these conversations.
First of all, why was the cabinet secretaries and the national security cabinet discussing a potential military operation on Signal, which is a public app? And why didn’t they notice a phone number that was not part of their group? And how concerned is the Secretary about the implications of this?
MS BRUCE: Well, I have two very short things to say to you. First is that we will not comment on the Secretary’s deliberative conversations; and secondly, that you should contact the White House.
QUESTION: But in this regard, this was a very extensive series of conversations involving a very important military action, and the Secretary of State is the leader of foreign policy. Shouldn’t he have an opinion about this?
MS BRUCE: Well, from this podium, I am not going to comment and never would I comment in any framework the Secretary’s deliberative conversations in any regard.
All right. All right. Yes, Daphne.
QUESTION: But are you concerned about the breach of security?
MS BRUCE: I’m not – I’ve said it twice and I appreciate your persistence. It’s why you’re who you are, but I won’t be commenting on that particular framework.
All right, Daphne, go ahead.
QUESTION: Could I move to Russia-Ukraine?
MS BRUCE: I wish you wouldn’t, but yes, of course.
QUESTION: Trump said today that territory was being discussed, so I just wanted to follow up on some comments that Witkoff made over the weekend about Crimea, Donbas, and regions annexed by Russia. He said that the question is will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories. Is it the administration’s view that Russia has a legitimate claim to these regions?
MS BRUCE: What I can tell you first of all, of course, is I’m not going to speculate, and once again there’s – because of the approach of this administration, there are a lot of diplomatic talks going on. There’s a lot of summits happening. There’s a lot of conversations happening, the supermajority of which I cannot comment on to you about those kinds of discussions or the commentary from which they may or may not have gleaned from.
What we do know – and I would refer back to the nature of what we are trying to do here, and what we’ve said is first and foremost in our mind there is one thing in front of us that everyone is doing, and that is to secure the peace of that region, of those two countries, which – more even than the region, the entire world. And that’s the singular thing that is being worked on right now in Saudi Arabia. It is the singular thing that the President has been focused on. It is what the Secretary has been working on pretty much from day one, which – what’s – what are we in, the ninth week at this point?
And dramatic changes have already occurred. Fabulous changes have occurred because of the focus, and there is really no other way to do it. You’ve got to have a dynamic that you’re going to convince people that they can embrace and agree to, and the only way to do that is to stay with a framework that doesn’t change, doesn’t morph, where there’s not distractions that you’re led away from the focus on what it is we’re trying to accomplish.
So that’s what we’re dealing with in this regard, and I think just a reminder that until there is a ceasefire – a full ceasefire, that’s when – as the President has noted and certainly the Secretary, that until there is a ceasefire, that’s when we can then discuss the differences in what proceeds after that when it comes to an enduring peace.
QUESTION: Thanks, Tammy. Can I switch to the Middle East, or did you want to stay on Russia?
MS BRUCE: Well, we’re – do we have any more Ukraine-Russia? Yes, sir, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. Just to follow up on the question my colleague asked, I understand you don’t want to comment on Witkoff’s comments. Some of them were reflecting Russian viewpoint. Ukrainians do appreciate this administration’s effort to solve the problem, but they don’t trust you. When they hear what we’ve heard in the interview, how do you want to build that trust in Ukrainian side?
MS BRUCE: Well, again, I think that this is why I urge people to look at the nature of what we’re accomplishing here and what the end result is. This is – it’s not a TV show. This is people working to get to an end result that everyone agrees with. There is no one in the world who wants any of this to continue. There is – the people involved, the innocent people on the ground, the world itself – we know all of this affects each one of us. Multiple countries are involved in one fashion or another, and this is about getting to an end point that the world has agreed upon and that all of us agree upon. And we can talk about other interviews or what someone might say, but the fact is – it’s – even when the Secretary has been asked about whether he trusts Putin, the fact is – and I’ll – I just go back to his point when asked about that. This isn’t about trust or if – who you’re dealing with and whether or not you like them or you don’t or what that dynamic is.
The question is, what do you end with? Is it something that makes the difference in what everyone wants? Is it what we all agree on, and what is going to get us to that north star of making sure that the slaughter stops? There’s – again, we still deal with every day, even with this work, the people that were alive yesterday are not alive today; people that are alive today are not going to be alive tomorrow. And the focus has to remain in that framework. And the only thing that brings us to that point are the conversations that are happening, the technical discussions now happening in Saudi Arabia, conversations between presidents, and maneuverings and negotiations and diplomatic conversations that get us to a point of peace. That is the only thing when we think about the next day that matters and that takes us to that point.
QUESTION: May I also —
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS BRUCE: All right.
QUESTION: May I also get your comment —
QUESTION: Follow-up, Ukraine?
QUESTION: — your reaction to attack to Sumy region this afternoon?
MS BRUCE: I’m sorry, to the what, sir?
QUESTION: Sumy region of Ukraine got attacked, where they targeted residential buildings, hospitals. Over 90 people got injured, 17 of them are children. Any reaction to that, please?
MS BRUCE: All of us decry the impact – this is why we do the work we do – on civilians. And it is why we continue to work for the ceasefire, and what the negotiations in Saudi are right now is to get that commitment and to get that done. So that’s why we’re doing what we do, because of the results like that that in any war are problematic and heartbreaking and we want to stop and reverse. So that’s the point of why we’re doing what we’re doing right now.
QUESTION: Still on Ukraine.
QUESTION: Thank you. Following up on this story that happened last week about the termination of a grant to the Yale initiative – research initiative and trying to track down Ukrainian children that had been taken by Russia. You mentioned last week in this room that the data exists; it’s not been deleted.
MS BRUCE: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: We also got a comment from the State Department saying that the department does not hold the data for the Conflict Observatory; the data resides on a platform owned by MITRE as part of the program. And we were referred to MITRE. In terms of, like, evidence of where these children have gone and when you’re dealing with courts of law, is this data something that even if it’s sitting somewhere on someone else’s server, like MITRE, is it overseen or controlled by the U.S. Government in terms of making sure that it’s not been tampered with? And is there a concern that with that particular initiative – the grant of that initiative terminated, is there a concern that a delay – that there’s a delay in the work that these researchers were doing in terms of, like, more of a search and rescue of these particular 30,000 children now being hindered?
MS BRUCE: Well, as you noted – and I will confirm again – is that the data exists. What I will say to your question is that we know it is secure, and that is all I’ll discuss about the nature of where it sits and where it is. It’s secure.
I will also mention something I had mentioned to you actually earlier, which is that this data and this kind of a program, we’ve – the grant has been stopped, of course, but it doesn’t mean just because something has changed, as this has, that it disappears or stops or becomes something that we can’t use. So I would just remind you that there is a variety of dynamics that are occurring when it comes to the world knowing about those missing children, the nature of – I know the President, President Trump’s concern about those missing children, the world is concerned, and the fact – to say the least – Ukraine has been advocating for this. They’ve been passionate about saving their nation and certainly getting those children back from Russia. And I think that this is – when we think about now the nature of the negotiations or certainly the conversations, that is part of those conversations, and it’s something that we all hope will be resolved sooner than later.
QUESTION: Are we ready to move on to the Middle East, or you want to —
MS BRUCE: I think we should. Sure. Let’s do it.
QUESTION: So two topics for you; I’ll squeeze them in back-to-back. Mahmoud Khalil – there was a DOJ brief filing with the court regarding his case. And one of the assertions in there was that he had failed to mention part of his resume, part of his history. And one of the things that DOJ brought up was his work with UNRWA. So I know you can’t comment on a particular visa case. I’m not going to ask; I know the drill. But in a larger perspective, does the State Department now look upon work with UNRWA as a potential negative when applying for a green card or other visa? That’s question one.
Question two. On Friday, Dorothy Shea, who heads up on an interim basis the U.S. Mission to the UN, called Security Council Resolution 2334 “a mistake.” It’s been for the most part the defining policy around settlements for a while now, other than the first Trump admin. The spokesman for the mission told me there’s been no change in policy, her statement doesn’t reflect a change in policy. But obviously, she calls it a mistake, and it means something. What is the position right now of the Trump admin and the State Department on Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line? Are we going back to the Pompeo doctrine? Is it going to be used as leverage to expand the Abraham Accords, which Vice President Vance brought up today? What is the position?
MS BRUCE: So much speculation. I’ve just got to get my speculation book out. I can’t – I’m not going to speculate; I’m not going to guess what’s in the minds of diplomats, and diplomats are involved, including an ambassador and her statement. I – I’m – I’ve – I’m not going to speculate on any of that, what they mean, or what other leaders are going to do or not do. And I appreciate we all have questions about certain things. What I can say – well, now I have to say what I can say about what I can’t say regarding your first question – is that you mention, of course, that there are court filings. And you mentioned the detail of what you say is in a court filing. I’m not going to expand on that either.
So what I can say in general is what the Secretary has said, what the President has said, what I have said on numerous occasions, and as brought up here just a little bit ago as well when it comes to the nature of messaging regarding visas and what the United States expects and I think what every nation expects: When someone is knocking on the door saying, “Can we come in,” America’s answer to that has usually been a resounding, “Yes, please do, using the regular legal system to do it.” But the reason that system works is because there is order to it. And we have expectations to what it is you say to us. And if you have an order and expectations and they’re – they’re never enforced or it doesn’t matter, and other people see that, it means that none of the laws mean anything, the regulations don’t mean anything, and there is – you’re not even really a nation, with – you’re a nation effectively without borders and controls. And no nation operates in that fashion.
So it’s not – again, certainly not commenting on any particular filing or any particular case. If you lie in your efforts to come to the United States to get a visa for any reason, or for a green card, maybe there haven’t been repercussions, or we haven’t done things properly in the past. A lot of things have changed with the election of Donald Trump as the American people have said, what has happened in the past in now unacceptable, we see the impact on people’s lives, everybody’s lives, and we now – it’s not anything new; we want to have the order back. We want to have the rules, the expectations, the values back to how we make our decisions.
So it is an important message, it’s a normal message, it’s a reasonable message, and it’s important, and especially for those when there’s certainly a court argument or if you have lied, if you’ve misrepresented what you were going to do here, there has to be a response to that for a nation to be able to be taken seriously by its own people who rely on it to keep them safe.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on the visa issue?
MS BRUCE: Yes, sir. Yes.
QUESTION: Hi. Changing the subject; I’m sorry.
MS BRUCE: Clearly – well, hold on now. So keep that in mind. So now —
MS BRUCE: Where – Nadia, where were you going? Hold on, all of you, I – you’re right here in front me. I’m willing to stay here as long as I need to. Yes, ma’am. Nadia.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions, but I want to follow up on the application. Just to be clear. So you’re saying that Mahmoud Khalil has lied on the application because —
MS BRUCE: Oh, I never – I never commented on his case. I never said that he did at all.
MS BRUCE: I’m saying that if anyone coming here, when you are filing – if you’re trying to get a visa or anything else – I didn’t – I never spoke about him and what he did or did not do.
QUESTION: Fair enough. Fair enough. I’ll take this one back.
QUESTION: Fair enough. But what my question to you is – for example, the evidence was taken against him that he was a member of UNRWA.
MS BRUCE: Nadia, I have to tell you, I’m not going to remark at all on a particular case. It’s not going to happen.
QUESTION: Okay, fine. Let me try – let me try again, different way. Do you think that if —
MS BRUCE: Three strikes here.
QUESTION: Do you believe that if somebody is a member of UNRWA, of the UN organization, and they did not disclose that if they apply for a visa —
MS BRUCE: Yeah, I —
QUESTION: — for somebody who was coming, since UNRWA is not a terrorist organization, are they denied a visa or not?
MS BRUCE: Again, this is – this is related to a court filing regarding a specific case, including also we don’t talk about visas in the specific dynamic there. I am – I’m not going to speculate or confirm or not confirm any dynamic that belongs to consular officers, to laws, to court filings that occur, or to the visa process for individuals. I’m not going to do that. And so I’m sorry. I would love to be able to answer your question, but I can’t. Yes.
QUESTION: On the Middle East?
MS BRUCE: Yes, go ahead. Yes.
QUESTION: Has Israel briefed the United States on its plans for a renewed ground operation, and is this something that the U.S. supports, a massive ground operation into Gaza?
MS BRUCE: Again, if there was a conversation about that, it is not something that I’m going to share the details with anybody anywhere. It’s not personal.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. support a ground operation?
MS BRUCE: I’m not going to comment or speculate or anything in that regard when it comes to something as serious as negotiations in an area where there’s a conflict that we are working every day to stop. And we’ve been the lead in the ceasefire aspects, we’ve been the lead in bridges to the next steps, and we are dealing with a terrorist organization that cannot remain at all in that region because of – because of what they do. They then continue the suffering, and there is just – it’s the simplest thing in the world. Hamas could release the hostages, which they still have, and the bodies of those that they’ve killed, and they could lay down their arms, and the suffering would end. All of this would end. And the questions come back, understandably, to the State Department, to Marco Rubio, to envoys, to people trying to get it to stop, about one thing, or why haven’t you done this, or would you do this. It is – Hamas has its one step it could take, and the carnage could end.
And I – it’s – I appreciate what you’re asking, but I have certain limits in what I can express when it comes to the way decisions get made. But what we do know is that decisions have been getting made that have stopped the fighting, that have given us the first glimmer of hope in ages, and we’re going to continue that kind of work because we do care and we are determined to get peace, and we’re the closest we’ve been in most areas than we’ve been in ages. And that needs to continue.
Yes, sir, in the back.
QUESTION: May I follow up on that?
MS BRUCE: Not – not at this moment.
Yes, sir, in the back.
QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. I have a question on Ukraine and the European – if I can go back a little bit. My question – my first question is: On which level the European Union will be involved in the talk in Saudi Arabia, if they will be involved? And the second one, if you can give us some more glimpse of the talk – what can you – like, something that you can share with us, like, related to the ceasefire, the Black Sea, or the part of – are we talking about part of Ukraine that’s going to be given to Russia or other left to Kyiv? Can you give us a little more?
MS BRUCE: Well, I – I’d already mentioned before on being asked about —
MS BRUCE: — comments on issues after a ceasefire. There is one thing we’re working on: that’s a ceasefire. I have nothing to say about what comes after a ceasefire, which has to be manifested in full, and we are close to that. This is what’s fascinating. We’ve never been closer, a breath away, from a full ceasefire, and then – full stop – then a discussion about an enduring peace. It’s doable. Humanity has done it in the past, we can do it again, but it’s never – this is the time where there has to be new ideas, where this dynamic has to stop. What I can tell you in general – you mentioned the Black Sea – is we do have negotiating teams, of course. They’re meeting in Saudi Arabia to discuss broadening the ceasefire to the Black Sea on the way to the full ceasefire, which is always the prize – that’s the prize right now; there’s no other prize – to fully restore peaceful commercial activity. The Black Sea, of course, is key to that.
We are continuing contact with both Russia and Ukraine. We’re committing – we’re committed to continuing our work to bridge that gap. As the Secretary said repeatedly, both sides will have to make compromises as we are working in this ceasefire range. President Zelenskyy has agreed on a partial ceasefire against energy infrastructure and has reiterated his willingness to adopt a full ceasefire. And there’s certainly the aspect of, possibility of while these situations, these technical negotiations, are going on now, that we hope to see where the parties have landed. And our work is about coming to an agreement about how we’re going to make this happen, but the Black Sea is now directly discussed, and let’s hope we have some success here.
QUESTION: What of European involvement?
MS BRUCE: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS BRUCE: And is – gentleman here in the —
QUESTION: I have a couple question on Gaza —
MS BRUCE: And you are, sir?
QUESTION: Shihab Rattansi, Al Jazeera English.
MS BRUCE: Terrific. How do you do? All right.
MS BRUCE: Good old Reuters.
QUESTION: — a ceasefire – (laughter) – a ceasefire, I’m told; a ceasefire proposal from Egypt, but Israel has yet to respond. Is that your understanding?
MS BRUCE: I don’t have an understanding about what might be negotiations or – nor am I going to speculate or guess. We, of course – things we do know is that the Egyptians care about this situation. There is the Arab plan. We know that has been discussed. We know how the Arab plan has not met the requirements of the Trump Administration in a couple of instances and when it comes to certainly Gazans and their safety in this process. So no, I don’t have a comment on that.
QUESTION: The Israelis have killed two more journalists – Hossam Shabat of Al Jazeera Mubasher; Mohammad Mansour of Palestine Today. That brings the number to 208. Each one was individually targeted. The IDF says they used extensive intelligence gathering and precise munitions – Shabat killed in his car, Mansour in his house. The Committee to Protect Journalists has once again noted that the deliberate targeted killing of journalists is a war crime. Do you have any comment?
MS BRUCE: I would say that every single thing that’s happening is a result of Hamas and its choices to drag that region down into a level of suffering that has been excruciating and has caused innumerable deaths. And of course, their reaction on October 7th, when there was a ceasefire and people were living in some relative peace, they decided to break that with an atrocity that was just – certainly the most Jews killed in a single framework than during the Holocaust. And we also, I can tell you, we stand by Israel and its needs as it defends itself through this period of time, as we also work with them so that they don’t need to defend themselves from the barbarity of an entity that has destroyed lives for generations and continues to.
QUESTION: But we’re talking about killing journalists.
MS BRUCE: So for everyone who has – for everyone, so many people, who do so many jobs and who have lived different lives, and the children and the babies who didn’t have a chance to seek their fortunes or their life dreams because of the barbarity of certain people who think that murder is the only way to move through life.
QUESTION: Is it a war crime to kill journalists?
MS BRUCE: And I’m not – I’m certainly – you know I’m not going to stand here and declare what’s a war crime and what isn’t. But what we do know is a crime is the mass slaughter of any individuals, certainly the targeting of people simply because of who they are, that Jew hatred is a signal regarding the barbarity and the nature of who it is you’re dealing with. The world knows that if you don’t stop it and don’t confront it as it bares its ugly face, it will not stop. And that is —
QUESTION: But you —
MS BRUCE: That is part of what this world now has decided that when we say never again, we mean never again.
QUESTION: But the principle that it’s a war crime to kill journalists —
MS BRUCE: All right, behind. Behind Nadia here. Yes, sir, go ahead. Yep, thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you so much. Tammy, a question on the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and the Popular Mobilization Forces, PMF. The Iraqi parliament remain deadlocked over a law regarding the Iranian-backed groups with political division.
MS BRUCE: Now, I’m sorry, when you look down it’s interesting. I know you all have microphones in front of you. I can’t hear you. So can you just repeat that again so I can answer you properly?
QUESTION: Yeah, of course. Yeah, my question is about the Iranian-backed groups —
QUESTION: The Iraqi parliament remains deadlocked over a law regarding the Iranian-backed groups with political division, and the Washington Institute here in D.C. arguing that the law is less about genuine reform, but it’s more about securing their role and their political and financial advantage for the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq. My question is that how this administration assess the role of the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq.
And the second question, there were reports circulating that this administration, including State Department, has requested the Iraqi Government to dissolve the militia groups and the PMF. Have you made such a request?
MS BRUCE: I can tell you a few things here. First, to strengthen Iraq’s sovereignty, the Government of Iraq must ensure it has command and control of all security forces within its borders, to include the PMF. These forces must respond to Iraq’s commander-in-chief and not to Iran.
We are also concerned that these Iran-aligned groups within the PMF, including designated foreign terrorist organizations, engage in violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq. We continue to urge the Iraqi Government to rein in these groups and hold them accountable for breaking Iraqi law. The President has no higher priority than the safety of U.S. personnel, and he has made it clear that the United States will defend itself, its personnel, and its interests.
So I hope that answers your question.
QUESTION: Follow-up on Iraq?
MS BRUCE: Yes. Said, please. You’ve been —
QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy.
MS BRUCE: Yes, of course.
QUESTION: Very quickly, I have a couple questions, one on Gaza.
MS BRUCE: I am not surprised.
QUESTION: One on – thank you. One on Gaza and one on the West Bank.
On Gaza, I want to ask you about the humanitarian situation. It’s been determined that over 97 percent of Gaza’s underground water is unfit for human consumption, and it’s being held. Are there any – aside from possibly talks for a ceasefire, another ceasefire and so on, are there any talks that you’re aware of to get the humanitarian aid going, especially the water going?
And second, I want to ask you on the West Bank, but I’ll wait until you answer this.
MS BRUCE: Well, I mean, this is why we want – and we’re very disturbed when Hamas did not perform to make sure that the ceasefire could continue, that they did not do what they said they would do. So we know, of course, when it comes to the ground water, of course, this is – it’s a crisis. It’s exacerbated by the fact that you have a terrorist group that just doesn’t care. When you think about the nature – we’re concerned about ground water. We know wherever you are and whoever you are about what makes life possible. And yet you are dealing with an entity controlling and had controlled that area that not only is not caring about the nature of quality of life, they’re – they don’t care about life at all. Their reason for being is to use human beings as human shields and to murder and to rape, to just create a kind of suffering that is unimaginable for civilized human beings.
So of course we care about this. This is why this administration has been determined and has been focused on changing that environment so it doesn’t repeat for every generation. There is a certain point where all of us in this room will be gone from this planet, and your children or the people you know and your grandchildren will be sitting in these chairs. If we can, as our generations, can try to please – there’ll always be problems, but with what we’ve learned over the last several centuries, certainly the last century and the beginning of this one, is that it cannot continue. So that they can have other conversations and maybe even better ones, but that has got to be what we focus on.
And I think that it’s – I don’t want to – just to say it’s not a given, but every time I see you, Said, you ask me questions and I answer you in a similar way. And I believe – I like you. You’ve gotten to know me a tiny bit – is that I am serious when I say these things to you and say them to you from my experience working in this building with the people who have devoted their lives to dealing with these issues, people – I’ve mentioned the career people before, the bureaus that are in this building that work on the issues in the regions, certainly the people who are voted in by the American people. And it is every day – maybe I – I don’t know what happened before in the last 50 years that makes it still an issue now. We are serious – beyond serious – that it’s going to end.
So I’m going to – I’m going to leave from there, because I do – through the day – rest of the day and through this briefing, I end up answering, I think, many of your questions.
MS BRUCE: And we’re going to continue on.
All right, now you, for waiting patiently. Thank you, sir.
QUESTION: Thanks, Tammy. Yeah, since this is my first briefing with you, Leon Bruneau, AFP.
MS BRUCE: Excellent. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
QUESTION: That way everyone is aware.
QUESTION: I have two unrelated questions, if you —
MS BRUCE: No. No way. Unrelated? All right.
QUESTION: Unrelated, yeah. The first is I’d like to go back to an issue which I think is important, which is USAID and humanitarian aid in general. I know you’ve been asked about this and you’ve said that the administration wanted to go after waste and fraud and what have you.
MS BRUCE: Of course. Well, they wanted to and they did.
QUESTION: There’s been many, many dire warnings – today from UNAIDS agency, last week from the UNICEF, the children agency, but also last week from the UNHCR, the refugee agency. Basically, the bottom line is, okay, you cut funding, you did this, and you did that, but it’s having and will have a major impact because it’s disrupted many, many programs, especially from the UN and all that. So – and by dismantling USAID, who are experienced in delivering aid and there were thousands of people doing it. Who is actually doing now the control, coordination, and distribution of whatever aid is left at State Department? Are you equipped for that?
And second, I mean, related to this is: What is your general comment as to these very dire warnings from very serious people about the millions of children or people who are going to suffer?
QUESTION: And then an unrelated question after.
MS BRUCE: All right, thank God, because I was going to – want to answer this one certainly first. And I know you haven’t been here because we have been talking about this a lot. So I’m going to say something that everyone has heard in one fashion or another, which is a reminder that just because a structure has changed or stopped does not mean that the nature of our work in that issue has stopped; that because a certain building might be named something else or a certain program has ended or that a certain department is over or made smaller does not mean that that’s the reflection of our commitment to foreign aid or to helping the world. That is pretty much what America has done from the start, and we continue to do, because it matters. But it will only work when we understand whether or not it is working to accomplish the thing that the people running it say it would accomplish, if the money that is spent is actually – again, according to Samantha Power on her way out as the lead of USAID last year said 7 to 10 percent of the money afforded to programs through her entity is – only gets to the people that need it, making a person wonder – and this isn’t a new debate – of where does the other 90 percent go.
So it is the height of irresponsibility to give people hope with spending billions of dollars, and it’s not even reaching the people that you’ve told that it is supposed to go to. It’s – they don’t see it. And you don’t see the world getting better, do you? You see different things going on, but the – our expense of foreign aid increases, and you’d think if the foreign aid process was to work, the need for foreign aid would decrease. But it doesn’t. It gets bigger and bigger and bigger. The Secretary has called it a foreign aid industrial complex, I think. And there is so much money that what has happened now is in fact a reform of this framework to make sure that if we’re going to spend, as we have and will likely do in some fashion, billions of dollars to help the world, damn it, those billions of dollars better help the world. That is the basic standard.
So there is disruption. We understand that. But it doesn’t mean everything has come to a halt. It doesn’t mean it ever did or that it will in the future. Our commitment to foreign aid remains. And just because how it used to look – what is before is gone – it means that it’s going to just look differently, and it will be more efficient, and the waste, abuse, and fraud which in the beginning of your question you said in a little bit of a snarky manner – I sometimes am snarky as well —
MS BRUCE: — that that was, like, what was said is that we wanted to deal with. Why else – I can say this for this administration, I think, for this State Department. Why else are we here? For us, it’s to fix this thing. It’s to make it really work. It’s to make it work for people and to fulfill the promise of what we’re supposed to be able to do, and not just have the façade because of a building or because of giant grants and money.
So it is – it’s disruptive. We – again, it’s foreign aid is not going to stop, not by any means.
MS BRUCE: And the form in which it takes and what we expect for it to align with what’s important to the United States – it is the taxpayer dollars. What’s important to us has made us the best country in the world and wants – and everybody wants to come here – and that we’re able to help the world, because that’s what this nation is, and that’s going to continue. But it wouldn’t be able to continue if this nation did not look seriously at where the money was going and the amount of waste and fraud that has existed. And that’s —
QUESTION: But there were thousands of people who were dealing with this.
QUESTION: Who is actually dealing with it at the State Department? Do you have the manpower to do it?
MS BRUCE: All right. There is – State Department, the United States Government, it is. It’s a very big entity. And there are people, not just – I talk about this with the ceasefires and the negotiations and foreign aid and everything else. Because you don’t see it and it’s not in front of you doesn’t mean it’s not happening. It is an operation around the world that is the biggest in —
MS BRUCE: — humankind. So I’m going to move on from that because – coming now to each of the briefings would be good because you would have heard these answers beforehand.
QUESTION: I – no, I don’t agree with you.
MS BRUCE: Yes, Andrea. Let’s get to some people in the back who have had their hands up.
QUESTION: Tammy, will —
MS BRUCE: Glasses on, please.
QUESTION: Can I just – can I just follow up on this?
QUESTION: I have a question, back to the West Bank. I’m wondering if you’ve seen reports that the director or co-director of the Oscar-winning film No Other Land was just beaten by settlers and taken from the ambulance from which he was carrying. If not on that particular – there’s been a spike in settler violence in the West Bank over the last 15 months. How concerned is this State Department about what we’re seeing in the West Bank?
MS BRUCE: Well, I’m not – I’m going to check – any loss of life or people being harmed, certainly, we decry, and I’m – that’s something I’m going to want us to go back and check on, and I’ll do that. But obviously, how concerned are we about violence?
QUESTION: By settler violence against Palestinians.
MS BRUCE: I will – when it when it comes to the issue of violence, I think this State Department, this administration, and as I’ve been working here and certainly as an American in general, it’s obvious, without my going through a soliloquy again, that we care very much about that and want it to end.
Yes, ma’am, in the back, in purple.
QUESTION: Thank you so much. On Israel, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, who – Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, who is an American-Turkish activist, was killed by an Israeli soldier on September 6th in the occupied West Bank while attending a protest. More than six months have passed since the U.S. Government called on Israel to investigate her killing, but there has been no action and accountability since – until this date. So I’m wondering if the administration pursuing justice and accountability for Aysenur and other Americans who were killed by Israel? And would you support an independent investigation into her killing, as demanded by Aysenur’s family?
MS BRUCE: Again, because of the world we live in, often I have to say we decry the harming or the injury or the killing of anyone. But when it comes to the nature of what Israel is doing, obviously I’m not going to speak to the nature of the choices they’ve had to make in what is clearly one of the most difficult times in their history and the history of everyone in the region. But what I will do – let’s go back. Let me – let’s make sure we follow up, Heather, on that particular issue, and we’ll take it from there. That’s – that’s where we’re going to go.
And in the back, did I hear JFK? Because, interestingly, no one – we haven’t brought that up yet, so let’s give that a try here.
QUESTION: Here? Thank you.
MS BRUCE: Who was – who was – yeah.
MS BRUCE: JFK – so who keeps saying JFK?
QUESTION: Excellent, thank you.
MS BRUCE: In the back? All right, let’s do it.
QUESTION: JFK assassination’s obviously back in the news, and Jefferson Morley of JFK Facts was on Bill O’Reilly’s show analyzing some of the documents the Trump Administration has released. One of the revelations that he discussed was the fact that James Angleton, the CIA counterintelligence chief, had relied on Israelis as part of his intelligence-gathering operations, which included monitoring Oswald prior to the assassination.
As you may be aware, JFK in the summer of 1963 was deeply concerned with Israel acquiring nuclear weapons. He had sent a series of letters to Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister, demanding that Israel allow inspectors. Ben Gurion resigned just when he was pressed on the issue by JFK.
MS BRUCE: All right, here – I’ve got something I can say to this. Do you want me to – do you want me to say something?
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, I do – I do. I do. I’ve got a question for you.
MS BRUCE: All right.
QUESTION: Israel continued stalling inspections —
MS BRUCE: All right.
QUESTION: — and JFK was, of course, assassinated in November. Every president since has adopted Israel’s policy of refusing to acknowledge the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. My question to you is: Will this administration finally do so?
MS BRUCE: Boy, that was – we went from JFK from – and then to now Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
QUESTION: Will you acknowledge Israel has nuclear weapons?
MS BRUCE: No, I – I understand. I understand. What I – here’s what I will tell you about the JFK files, is —
QUESTION: I’m not asking about the JFK files.
MS BRUCE: There’s about 80 – excuse me, sir, I —
MS BRUCE: Thank you. About 80,000 pages of unredacted records related to the Kennedy assassination are currently being released – and I think they’ve finished at this point – by order of President Trump. We know that also, as I’ve been asked before, if there was any other material anywhere, this is it. This is all the material. It’s out and, again, unredacted. And so that’s good news. For my generation this is also good news. Certainly as you grow up with that kind of a dynamic that happened in this country, and now of course we’re happily – we happily can say that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is contributing to the nature of our nation and making a difference as well.
As far as the speculation and conspiracy theories about what was happening regarding that assassination and in the decades that followed, I have no comment for you, and nor am I going to speculate or comment on that.
QUESTION: So you will not acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons?
MS BRUCE: But I appreciate you being here and asking in that regard.
At the end, yes, sir, go ahead, please. Thank you.
QUESTION: No straight talk on Israel?
QUESTION: Thank you so much. On Bangladesh.
MS BRUCE: Please – please. Let’s keep going. You’re —
QUESTION: Thank – thank you, Tammy. On Bangladesh, I have two questions. Bangladesh army chief warns of imminent Islamist extremist attacks on Bangladesh. Given the U.S. commitment to counterterrorism, what step is the U.S. taking to prevent Bangladesh from becoming another Afghanistan?
Tammy, I have second question: How is the U.S. Government addressing the unlawful imprisonment of journalist under Muhammad Yunus government and working to uphold press freedom in Bangladesh? Thank you.
MS BRUCE: Yes, well, with the questions that we deal with a lot, I think that we go back to what’s most important in the nature of how we handle other countries, what we expect of them if we consider them our friends, the diplomatic scenario. Fortunately, we have an administration and a Secretary of State who is completely committed to diplomatic resolutions, to face-to-face conversations with our friends around the world, and certainly the impact, hopefully, of our strength and our President, who is known for taking things seriously, to know that we expect every country, certainly Bangladesh and others, to say the least, to follow the rules of human rights and to be cognizant and fair regarding the behavior and what their own citizens expect from their government.
So I think that’s a north star for any nation, and I’m going to move on. We’ll get one more in here. Yes, right here. Right here.
QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. Ahead of Second Lady Usha Vance’s planned trip to Greenland later this week, Greenland’s prime minister called the visit a sign of American aggression and said that we’re now at a level where it can no way be characterized as a harmless visit from a politician’s wife. Do you have a response to those comments? And do you see the relationship between the U.S. and Greenland as having deteriorated over the course of the past couple months?
MS BRUCE: Well, I can tell you about the Second Lady’s trip, so we’ll start there. As the White House has announced, Second Lady Usha Vance will travel to Greenland with her son and a United States delegation to visit historical sites, learn about Greenlandic heritage, and attend Greenland’s national dogsled race. The delegation will depart for Greenland on Thursday, March 27th, and return to the United States on Saturday, March 29th. And when it comes to I think the details of when – the relationship between those two countries in particular, I would refer you to the White House for that.
All right, I think that’s it. All right, we’re good. We’re good. Thank you, everyone. I’m glad we got as much covered as we did, and no doubt – oh, I’ll be back on Friday, so we will be here Friday, and I’ll see you then. Have a great rest of your day.
QUESTION: Thank you so much.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:04 p.m.)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)
