Full Text Political Transcripts March 16, 2017: President Donald Trump’s First Budget 2018 FY

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

America First – A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again

Estimate #1—FY 2017 Appropriations Request:  Department of Defense to rebuild the U.S. Armed Forces and accelerate the campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and Department of Homeland Security for urgent border protection activities.

President Donald Trump’s Speech at Make America Great Again Rally

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President at Make America Great Again Rally

Source: WH, 3-15-17

Nashville Municipal Auditorium
Nashville, Tennessee

7:06 P.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, everybody.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  So we’re just going to let the other folks come in, fill it up.  This is some crowd.  You have to see what’s outside, you wouldn’t even believe it.  (Applause.)  Unbelievable.

So I’m thrilled to be here in Nashville, Tennessee, the home — (applause) — of country music, Southern hospitality, and the great President Andrew Jackson.  (Applause.)  I just came from a tour of Andrew Jackson’s home to mark the 250th anniversary of his birth.  Jackson’s life was devoted to one very crucial principle — he understood that real leadership means putting America first.  (Applause.)

Before becoming President, Andrew Jackson served your state from the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate, and he also served as commander of the Tennessee militia.  Tough cookie.  Tough cookie.  (Applause.)

So let’s begin tonight by thanking all of the incredible men and women of the United States military and all of our wonderful veterans.  The veterans.  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA!

THE PRESIDENT:  Amazing.  There’s no place I’d rather be than with all of you here tonight, with the wonderful, hardworking citizens of our country.  (Applause.)  I would much rather spend time with you than any of the pundits, consultants, or special interests, certainly — or reporters from Washington, D.C.  (Applause.)

It’s patriotic Americans like you who make this country run, and run well.  You pay your taxes, follow our laws, support your communities, raise your children, love your country, and send your bravest to fight in our wars.  (Applause.)  All you want is a government that shows you the same loyalty in return.  It’s time that Washington heard your voice — and believe me, on November 8th, they heard your voice.  (Applause.)  The forgotten men and women of our country will never be forgotten again, believe me.  (Applause.)

I want to thank so many of your state leaders — State Party Chairman Scott Golden; Congressman Scott DesJarlais; Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; Congresswoman Diane Black; Congressman Jimmy Duncan — right from the beginning.  (Applause.)  Governor Bill Haslam.  (Applause.)  A great friend of mine, Senator Bob Corker.  (Applause.)  An incredible guy, respected by all — Senator Lamar Alexander.  (Applause.)  And so many more.  Thank you all for being here.

We’re going to be working closely together to deliver for you, the citizens of Tennessee, like you’ve never been delivered for before.  Thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  We’re going to reduce your taxes — big league.  Big.  (Applause.)  Big.  I want to start that process so quickly.  Got to get the healthcare done.  We got to start the tax reductions.  (Applause.)

We are going to enforce our trade rules and bring back our jobs, which are scattered all over the world.  They’re coming back to our country.  (Applause.)  We’re going to support the amazing — absolutely amazing men and women of law enforcement.  (Applause.)  Protect your freedoms, and defend the Second Amendment.  (Applause.)  And we are going to restore respect for our country and for its great and very beautiful flag.  (Applause.)

It’s been a little over 50 days since my inauguration, and we’ve been putting our America First agenda very much into action.  You see what’s happening.  We’re keeping our promises.  In fact, they have signs — “He’s Kept His Promise.”  They’re all over the place.  I have.  (Applause.)  We have done far more — I think maybe more than anybody’s done in this office in 50 days, that I could tell you.  (Applause.)

And we have just gotten started.  Wait until you see what’s coming, folks.  We’ve appointed a Supreme Court justice to replace the late, great Antonin Scalia.  His name is Judge Neil Gorsuch.  (Applause.)  He will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.  We are proposing a budget that will shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy — and I mean bloated — while protecting our national security.  You see what we’re doing with our military — bigger, better, stronger than ever before.  You see what’s happening.  (Applause.)  And you’re already seeing the results.  Our budget calls for one of the single largest increases in defense spending history in this country.  (Applause.)

We believe — especially the people in Tennessee, I know you people so well — (applause) — in peace through strength.  That’s what we’re going to have.  And we are taking steps to make sure that our allies pay their fair share.  They have to pay.  (Applause.)  We’ve begun a dramatic effort to eliminate job-killing federal regulations like nobody has ever seen before — slash, slash.  We’re going to protect the environment, we’re going to protect people’s safeties, but, let me tell you, the regulation business has become a terrible business, and we’re going to bring it down to where it should be.  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  USA! USA! USA!

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, let’s go.  One person — and they’ll be the story tomorrow — did you hear there was a protestor?  (Applause.)

We’re going to put our miners back to work.  We’re going to put our auto industry back to work.  Already because of this new business climate, we are creating jobs that are starting to pour back into our country like we haven’t seen in many, many decades.  (Applause.)

In the first two job reports since I took the oath of office, we’ve already added nearly half a million new jobs, and believe me, it’s just beginning.  (Applause.)  I’ve already authorized the construction of the long-stalled and delayed Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines.  (Applause.)  A lot of jobs.

I’ve also directed that new pipelines must be constructed with American steel.  (Applause.)  They want to build them here, they use our steel.  We believe in two simple rules:  Buy American and Hire American.  (Applause.)

On trade, I’ve kept my promise to the American people, and withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership disaster. (Applause.)  Tennessee has lost one third of its manufacturing jobs since the institution of NAFTA, one of the worst trade deals ever in history.  Our nation has lost over 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization — 60,000.  Think of that.  More than that.

We’re not going to let it happen anymore.  From now on, we are going to defend the American worker and our great American companies.  (Applause.)  And if America does what it says, and if your President does what I’ve been telling you, there is nobody anywhere in the world that can even come close to us, folks.  Not even close.  (Applause.)

If a company wants to leave America, fire their workers, and then ship their new products back into our country, there will be consequences.  (Applause.)  That’s what we have borders for.  And by the way, aren’t our borders getting extremely strong?  (Applause.)  Very strong.

AUDIENCE:  USA! USA! USA!

THE PRESIDENT:  Don’t even think about it.  We will build the wall.  Don’t even think about it.  (Applause.)  In fact, as you probably read, we went out to bid.  We had hundreds of bidders.  Everybody wants to build our wall.  (Applause.)  Usually, that means we’re going to get a good price.  We’re going to get a good price, believe me.  (Applause.)  We’re going to build the wall.

Some of the fake news said, I don’t think Donald Trump wants to build the wall.  Can you imagine if I said we’re not going to build a wall?  Fake news.  Fake, fake news.  Fake news, folks.  A lot of fake.

No, the wall is way ahead of schedule in terms of where we are.  It’s under design, and you’re going to see some very good things happening.  But the border by itself right now is doing very well.  It’s becoming very strong.  General Kelly has done a great job — General Kelly.

My administration is also following through on our promise to secure, protect, and defend that border within our United States.  Our southern border will be protected always.  It will have the wall.  Drugs will stop pouring in and poisoning our youth, and that will happen very, very soon.  You’re already seeing what’s going on.  The drugs are pouring into our country, folks.  They are poisoning our youth and plenty of others, and we’re going to stop it.  We’re not going to playing games.  Not going to be playing games.  (Applause.)  Following my executive action — and don’t forget, we’ve only been here for like — what? — 50 days — we’ve already experienced an unprecedented 40-percent reduction in illegal immigration on our Southern border; 61 percent since Inauguration Day — 61 percent.  Think about it.

And now people are saying, we’re not going to go there anymore because we can’t get in.  So it’s going to get better and better.  We got to stop those drugs, though.  We got to stop those drugs.

During the campaign, as I traveled all across this country, I met with many American families whose loved ones were viciously and violently killed by illegal immigrants because our government refused to enforce our already existing laws.  These American victims were ignored by the media.  They were ignored by Washington.  But they were not ignored by me, and they’re not ignored by you, and they never will be ignored certainly any longer.  Not going to happen.  (Applause.)

As we speak, we are finding the drug dealers, the robbers, thieves, gang members, killers and criminals preying on our citizens.  One by one — you’re reading about it, right?  They’re being thrown out of our country.  They’re being thrown into prisons.  And we will not let them back in.  (Applause.)

We’re also working, night and day, to keep our nation safe from terrorism.  (Applause.)  We have seen the devastation from 9/11 to Boston to San Bernardino — hundreds upon hundreds of people from outside our country have been convicted of terrorism-related offenses in the United States courts.  Right now we have investigations going on all over — hundreds of refugees are under federal investigation for terrorism and related reasons.  We have entire regions of the world destabilized by terrorism and ISIS.  For this reason, I issued an executive order to temporarily suspend immigration from places where it cannot safely occur.  (Applause.)

But let me give you the bad news.  We don’t like bad news, right?  I don’t want to hear — and I’ll turn it into good.  But let me give you the bad, the sad news.  Moments ago, I learned that a district judge in Hawaii — part of the much overturned 9th Circuit Court — and I have to be nice; otherwise I’ll get criticized for speaking poorly about our courts.  I’ll be criticized by these people, among the most dishonest people in the world — I will be criticized — I’ll be criticized by them for speaking harshly about our courts.  I would never want to do that.  A judge has just blocked our executive order on travel and refugees coming into our country from certain countries.

AUDIENCE:  Booo —

THE PRESIDENT:  The order he blocked was a watered-version of the first order that was also blocked by another judge and should have never been blocked to start with.  This new order was tailored to the dictates of the 9th Circuit’s — in my opinion — flawed ruling.  This is, the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach.  The law and the Constitution give the President the power to suspend immigration when he deems — or she — or she.  Fortunately, it will not be Hillary she.  (Applause.)  When he or she deems it to be in the national interest of our country.

So we have a lot of lawyers here.  We also have a lot of smart people here.  Let me read to you directly from the federal statute, 212F, of the immigration — and you know what I’m talking about, right?  Can I read this to you?  Listen to this.  Now, we’re all smart people.  We’re all good students — some are bad students, but even if you’re a bad student this is a real easy one, let me tell you.  Ready?

So here’s the statute — which they don’t even want to quote when they overrule it.  And it was put here for the security of our country.  And this goes beyond me, because there will be other Presidents, and we need this.  And sometimes we need it very badly for security — security of our country.

It says — now, listen how easy this is.  “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he — see, it wasn’t politically correct, because it should say he or she.  You know, today they’d say that.  Actually, that’s the only mistake they made.  “as he shall deem necessary, suspending entry of all aliens, or any class of aliens, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or pose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deems to be appropriate.”  In other words, if he thinks there’s danger out there, he or she — whoever is President — can say, I’m sorry, folks, not now, please.  We’ve got enough problems.  (Applause.)

We’re talking about the safety of our nation, the safety and security of our people.  (Applause.)  Now, I know you people aren’t skeptical people because nobody would be that way in Tennessee.  Right?  Nobody — not Tennessee.  You don’t think this was done by a judge for political reasons, do you?  No.

AUDIENCE:  Booo —

THE PRESIDENT:  This ruling makes us look weak — which, by the way, we no longer are, believe me.  (Applause.)  Just look at our borders.  We’re going to fight this terrible ruling.  We’re going to take our case as far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court.  (Applause.)  We’re going to win.  We’re going to keep our citizens safe.  And regardless, we’re going to keep our citizens safe, believe me.  (Applause.)  Even liberal Democratic lawyer, Alan Dershowitz —- good lawyer — just said that we would win this case before the Supreme Court of the United States.  (Applause.)

Remember this, I wasn’t thrilled, but the lawyers all said, let’s tailor it.  This is a watered–down version of the first one.  This is a watered–down version.  And let me tell you something, I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way, which is what I wanted to do in the first one.  (Applause.)

The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.  I was elected to change our broken and dangerous system and thinking in government that has weakened and endangered our country and left our people defenseless.  (Applause.)  And I will not stop fighting for the safety of you and your families, believe me.  Not today, not ever.  We’re going to win it.  We’re going to win it.  (Applause.)

We’re going to apply common sense.  We’re going to apply intelligence.  And we’re never quitting, and we’re never going away, and we’re never, ever giving up.  The best way to keep foreign terrorists — or, as some people would say in certain instances, radical Islamic terrorists — from attacking our country is to stop them from entering our country in the first place.  (Applause.)

We’ll take it, but these are the problems we have.  People are screaming, break up the 9th Circuit.  And I’ll tell you what, that 9th Circuit — you have to see.  Take a look at how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.  Take a look.  And this is what we have to live with.

Finally, I want to get to taxes.  I want to cut the hell out of taxes, but — (applause) — but before I can do that — I would have loved to have put it first, I’ll be honest — there is one more very important thing that we have to do, and we are going to repeal and replace horrible, disastrous Obamacare.  (Applause.)

If we leave Obamacare in place, millions and millions of people will be forced off their plans, and your senators just told me that in your state you’re down to practically no insurers.  You’re going to have nobody.  You’re going to have nobody.  And this is true all over.  The insurers are fleeing.  The insurers are fleeing.  It’s a catastrophic situation, and there’s nothing to compare anything to because Obamacare won’t be around for a year or two.  It’s gone.  So it’s not like, oh, gee, they have this.  Obamacare is gone.

Premiums will continue to soar double digits and even triple digits in many cases.  It will drain our budget and destroy our jobs.  Remember all of the broken promises?  You can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan.  Remember the wise guy — remember the wise guy that essentially said the American people — the so–called architect — the American people are stupid because they approved it?  We’re going to show them.

Those in Congress who made these promises have no credibility whatsoever on healthcare.   (Applause.)  And remember this — remember this:  If we took, because there’s such divisiveness — and I’m not just talking now, with me.  There was with Obama.  There was with Bush.  The level of hatred and divisiveness with the politicians.  I remember years ago, I’d go to Washington — I* was always very politically active — and Republicans and Democrats, they’d fight during the day and they go to dinner at night.  Today, there’s a level that nobody has seen before.

Just remember this:  If we submitted the Democrats’ plan, drawn everything perfect for the Democrats, we wouldn’t get one vote from the Democrats.  That’s the way it is.  That’s how much divisiveness and other things there are.  So it’s a problem.  But we’re going to get it by.

So, I’ve met with so many victims of Obamacare —- the people who have been so horribly hurt by this horrible legislation.  At the very core of Obamacare was a fatal flaw — the government forcing people to buy a government–approved product.  There are very few people — very few people.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Booo —

THE PRESIDENT:  By the way — watch what happens.  Now you just booed Obamacare.  They will say, Trump got booed when he mentioned — they’re bad people, folks.  They’re bad people.

AUDIENCE:  Booo —

THE PRESIDENT:  Tonight, I’ll go home, I’ll turn on, I’ll say — listen, I’ll turn on that television.  My wife will say, darling, it’s too bad you got booed.  I said, I didn’t get booed.  This was a — I said, no, no, they were booing Obamacare.  Watch, a couple of them will actually do it, almost guaranteed.  But when we call them out, it makes it harder for them to do it.  So we’ll see.  It’s the fake, fake media.  We want Americans to be able to purchase the health insurance plans they want, not the plans forced on them by our government.  (Applause.)

The House has put forward a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare based on the principles I outlined in my joint address, but let me tell you, we’re going to arbitrate, we’re going to all get together and we’re going to get something done.  Remember this — if we didn’t do it the way we’re doing it, we need 60 votes so we have to get the Democrats involved.  They won’t vote, no matter what we do, they’re not going to vote.  So we’re doing it a different way, a complex way.  It’s fine.  The end result is when you have phase one, phase two, phase three — it’s going to be great.  It’s going to be great.

And then, we get on to tax reductions, which I like.  (Applause.)  The House legislation does so much for you.  It gives the states Medicaid flexibility.  And some of the states will take over their healthcare.  Governor Rick Scott in Florida said, just send me the money — they run a great plan.  We have states that are doing great.  It gives great flexibility.

Thank you, folks.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  It repeals hundreds of billions of dollars in Obamacare taxes.  It provides tax credits to purchase the care that is rightfully theirs.  The bill that I will ultimately sign — and that will be a bill where everybody is going to get into the room and we’re going to get it done — we’ll get rid of Obamacare and make healthcare better for you and for your family.  (Applause.)

And once this is done, and a step further, we are going to try and put it in phase three — I’m going to work on bringing down the cost of medicine by having a fair and competitive bidding process.  (Applause.)

We welcome this healthcare debate and its negotiation, and we’re going to carry it out, and have been carrying it out, in the full light of day — unlike the way Obamacare was passed.  Remember, folks, if we don’t do anything, Obamacare is gone.  It’s not like, oh, gee, it’s going to be wonderful in three years.  It’s gone.  It’s gone.  It’s gone.  Not working.  It’s gone.  What we cannot do is to be intimidated by the dishonest attacks from Democratic leaders in Congress who broke the system in the first place and who don’t believe you should be able to make your own healthcare decisions.  (Applause.)

I am very confident that if we empower the American people we will accomplish incredible things for our country — not just on healthcare, but all across our government.  We will unlock new frontiers in science and in medicine.  We will give our children the right to attend the school of their choice, one where they will be taught to love this country and its values.  (Applause.)  We will create millions and millions of new jobs by lowering taxes on our businesses, and very importantly for our workers, we’re going to lower taxes.  (Applause.)

And we will fight for the right of every American child to grow up in a safe neighborhood, attend a great school, and to graduate with access to a high-paying job that they love doing.  (Applause.)

No matter our background, no matter our income, no matter our geography, we all share the same home.  We all salute the same flag.  And we all are made by the same God.  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA!

THE PRESIDENT:  It’s time to embrace our glorious American destiny.  Anything we can dream for our country we can achieve for our country.  All we have to do is tap into that American pride that is swelling our hearts and stirring our souls.  And we found that out very recently in our last election — a lot of pride.  (Applause.)  We are all Americans, and the future truly belongs to us.  The future belongs to all of you.  This is your moment.  This is your time.  This is the hour when history is made.  All we have to do is put our own citizens first, and together we will make America strong again.  (Applause.)  We will make America wealthy again.  We will make America proud again.  We will make America safe again.  And we will make America great again.  (Applause.)

Thank you.  God bless you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  God bless you, everybody.  (Applause.)

END
7:43 P.M. CDT

 

 

Full Text Political Transcripts March 15, 2017: Hawaii’s Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Trump Travel Ban

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

Full Text Hawaii’s Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Trump Travel Ban

Source: United States District Court District of Hawaii, 3-15-17

Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 219 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 43

4356 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PageID #:

FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII 12:32 pm, Mar 15, 2017

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL ELSHIKH,

SUE BEITIA, CLERK CV.

NO. 17-00050 DKW-KSC

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER vs. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.

….READ MORE

Full Text Political Transcripts March 10, 2017: President Trump’s First 50 Days of Action

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

President Trump’s First 50 Days of Action: Achieving Results for the American People

Source: WH,  3-10-17

President Trump's First 50 Days of Action

JUMPSTARTING JOB CREATION: President Donald J. Trump is looking out for the American workers who Washington has left behind.

  • President Trump has worked with the private sector to deliver tens of thousands of new jobs for Americans.
  • President Trump ordered the United States to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and negotiations.
  • President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum to clear roadblocks to construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  • President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum declaring that the Dakota Access Pipeline serves the national interest and initiating the process to complete its construction.
  • President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum to help ensure that new pipeline construction and repair work use materials and equipment from the United States.

CUTTING GOVERNMENT RED TAPE: President Trump has quickly taken steps to get the Government out of the way of job creation.

  • President Trump directed each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to identify costly and unnecessary regulations in need of modification or repeal.
  • President Trump has required that for every new Federal regulation, two existing regulations be eliminated.
  • President Trump directed the Department of Commerce to streamline Federal permitting processes for domestic manufacturing and to reduce regulatory burdens on domestic manufacturers.
  • President Trump signed legislation, House Joint Resolution 38, to prevent the burdensome “Stream Protection Rule” from causing further harm to the coal industry.
  • President Trump ordered the review of the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States,” known as the WOTUS rule, to evaluate whether it is stifling economic growth or job creation.

REFORMING WASHINGTON: President Trump has taken actions to reform the old Washington way of doing business and to ensure that his entire Administration are working for the American people.

  • President Trump put in place a hiring freeze for Federal civilian employees to stop the further expansion of an already bloated government.
  • President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing new ethics commitments for all Executive branch appointees, putting in place a five-year lobbying ban and a permanent ban on lobbying for foreign governments, so that appointees serve the American people instead of their own interests.

PUTTING PATIENT HEALTHCARE FIRST: After years of false promises, rising costs, and shrinking accessibility, President Trump is championing reforms to put patients first.

  • President Trump has supported efforts by Republicans in Congress to repeal the worst parts of Obamacare and replace them with the American Health Care Act.
  • President Trump acted on his first day in office to instruct Federal agencies to minimize the burden of Obamacare on Americans.

PRIORITIZING AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY: President Trump has taken action to ensure the safety and security of the United States homeland, its borders, and its people.

  • Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of the Treasury sanctioned 25 entities and individuals involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program.
  • President Trump implemented new protections against foreign terrorists entering our country.
  • President Trump has proposed increasing the military’s budget by $54 billion so that it can begin to rebuild.
  • As a result of a Presidential Memorandum President Trump signed on January 28, he has received a plan to defeat ISIS designed by the Secretary of Defense and other members of his Cabinet.
  • President Trump ordered a review of military readiness and made it the policy of the United States to rebuild the United States’ Armed Forces.
  • President Trump has negotiated to bring down the price of the F-35, saving millions of dollars.

DELIVERING ON IMMIGRATION REFORM: President Trump has made enforcing the Nation’s immigration laws a priority of his Administration.

  • President Trump signed an Executive Order to start work on a southern border wall.
  • President Trump signed an Executive Order to enhance the public safety of Americans through enforcement of immigration laws.
  • President Trump signed an Executive Order to halt funding to jurisdictions in the United States that do not comply with Federal immigration rules.
  • President Trump signed an Executive Order to begin the removal of illegal immigrants who have committed certain crimes.
  • Following through on President Trump’s direction, the Department of Homeland Security will hire 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and agents and 5,000 border patrol agents.

RESTORING PUBLIC SAFETY TO AMERICAN COMMUNITIES: President Trump is following through on his promise to restore public safety for all Americans.

  • President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Attorney General to develop a strategy to more effectively prosecute people who engage in crimes against law enforcement officers.
  • President Trump signed an Executive Order to establish a task force, led by the Attorney General, to reduce crime and restore public safety in communities across America.
  • President Trump signed an Executive Order re-focusing the Federal Government’s energy and resources on dismantling transnational criminal organizations, such as drug cartels.

HELPING WOMEN AND MINORITIES SUCCEED: President Trump knows the country cannot reach its potential unless every American has a chance to prosper.

  • President Trump signed an Executive Order strengthening and repositioning the Historically Black Colleges and Universities initiatives within the White House to foster better opportunities in higher education.
  • President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau launched the United States-Canada Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders.
  • President Trump signed into law the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act to encourage the National Science Foundation’s entrepreneurial programs to recruit and support women to extend their focus beyond the laboratory and into the commercial world.
  • President Trump signed into law the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act to encourage women to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), pursue careers in aerospace, and further advance the nation’s space science and exploration efforts.

KEEPING HIS PROMISE TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION: President Trump promised a U.S. Supreme Court justice in the mold of late Justice Antonin Scalia selected from his previously announced list of 20 judges

  • President Trump nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court because of his consistent record defending the Constitution.

Full Text Political Transcripts February 28, 2017: President Donald Trump’s Address to Joint Session of Congress

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by President Trump in Joint Address to Congress

Source: WH, 2-28-17

U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.

9:09 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, the First Lady of the United States — (applause) — and citizens of America:

Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our nation’s path towards civil rights and the work that still remains to be done.  (Applause.)  Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.  (Applause.)

Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty and justice in an unbroken chain all the way down to the present.  That torch is now in our hands.  And we will use it to light up the world.  I am here tonight to deliver a message of unity and strength, and it is a message deeply delivered from my heart.  A new chapter — (applause) — of American Greatness is now beginning.  A new national pride is sweeping across our nation.  And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp.

What we are witnessing today is the renewal of the American spirit.  Our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead.  (Applause.)  All the nations of the world — friend or foe — will find that America is strong, America is proud, and America is free.

In nine years, the United States will celebrate the 250th anniversary of our founding — 250 years since the day we declared our independence.  It will be one of the great milestones in the history of the world.  But what will America look like as we reach our 250th year?  What kind of country will we leave for our children?

I will not allow the mistakes of recent decades past to define the course of our future.  For too long, we’ve watched our middle class shrink as we’ve exported our jobs and wealth to foreign countries.  We’ve financed and built one global project after another, but ignored the fates of our children in the inner cities of Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and so many other places throughout our land.

We’ve defended the borders of other nations while leaving our own borders wide open for anyone to cross and for drugs to pour in at a now unprecedented rate.  And we’ve spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas, while our infrastructure at home has so badly crumbled.

Then, in 2016, the Earth shifted beneath our feet.  The rebellion started as a quiet protest, spoken by families of all colors and creeds — families who just wanted a fair shot for their children and a fair hearing for their concerns.

But then the quiet voices became a loud chorus as thousands of citizens now spoke out together, from cities small and large, all across our country.  Finally, the chorus became an earthquake, and the people turned out by the tens of millions, and they were all united by one very simple, but crucial demand: that America must put its own citizens first.  Because only then can we truly make America great again.  (Applause.)

Dying industries will come roaring back to life.  Heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need.  Our military will be given the resources its brave warriors so richly deserve.  Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our very, very beautiful land.  Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and, ultimately, stop.  And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety and opportunity.  Above all else, we will keep our promises to the American people.  (Applause.)

It’s been a little over a month since my inauguration, and I want to take this moment to update the nation on the progress I’ve made in keeping those promises.

Since my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart and many others have announced that they will invest billions and billions of dollars in the United States, and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs.  (Applause.)

The stock market has gained almost $3 trillion in value since the election on November 8th, a record.  We’ve saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of a fantastic — and it is a fantastic — new F-35 jet fighter, and we’ll be saving billions more on contracts all across our government.  We have placed a hiring freeze on non-military and non-essential federal workers.

We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials and a lifetime ban — (applause) — thank you — and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.

We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency.  (Applause.)  And we’re imposing a new rule which mandates that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.  (Applause.)  We’re going to stop the regulations that threaten the future and livelihood of our great coal miners.  (Applause.)

We have cleared the way for the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines — (applause) — thereby creating tens of thousands of jobs.  And I’ve issued a new directive that new American pipelines be made with American steel.  (Applause.)

We have withdrawn the United States from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership.  (Applause.)  And with the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams.  (Applause.)

To protect our citizens, I have directed the Department of Justice to form a Task Force on Reducing Violent Crime.  I have further ordered the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, along with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread all across our nation.  (Applause.)  We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth, and we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.  (Applause.)

At the same time, my administration has answered the pleas of the American people for immigration enforcement and border security.  (Applause.)  By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions and billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone.  (Applause.)  We want all Americans to succeed, but that can’t happen in an environment of lawless chaos.  We must restore integrity and the rule of law at our borders.  (Applause.)

For that reason, we will soon begin the construction of a great, great wall along our southern border.  (Applause.)  As we speak tonight, we are removing gang members, drug dealers, and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our very innocent citizens.  Bad ones are going out as I speak, and as I promised throughout the campaign.

To any in Congress who do not believe we should enforce our laws, I would ask you this one question:  What would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income, or their loved one because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?  (Applause.)

Our obligation is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States.  We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.  (Applause.)  According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country.  We have seen the attacks at home — from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon, and, yes, even the World Trade Center.

We have seen the attacks in France, in Belgium, in Germany, and all over the world.  It is not compassionate, but reckless to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur.  (Applause.)  Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.  We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America.  We cannot allow our nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.  (Applause.)

That is why my administration has been working on improved vetting procedures, and we will shortly take new steps to keep our nation safe and to keep out those out who will do us harm.  (Applause.)

As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS — a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, and women, and children of all faiths and all beliefs.  We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.  (Applause.)

I have also imposed new sanctions on entities and individuals who support Iran’s ballistic missile program, and reaffirmed our unbreakable alliance with the State of Israel.  (Applause.)

Finally, I have kept my promise to appoint a justice to the United States Supreme Court, from my list of 20 judges, who will defend our Constitution.  (Applause.)

I am greatly honored to have Maureen Scalia with us in the gallery tonight.  (Applause.)  Thank you, Maureen.  Her late, great husband, Antonin Scalia, will forever be a symbol of American justice.  To fill his seat, we have chosen Judge Neil Gorsuch, a man of incredible skill and deep devotion to the law.  He was confirmed unanimously by the Court of Appeals, and I am asking the Senate to swiftly approve his nomination.  (Applause.)

Tonight, as I outline the next steps we must take as a country, we must honestly acknowledge the circumstances we inherited.  Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.  Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps.  More than one in five people in their prime working years are not working.  We have the worst financial recovery in 65 years.  In the last eight years, the past administration has put on more new debt than nearly all of the other Presidents combined.

We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, and we’ve lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.  Our trade deficit in goods with the world last year was nearly $800 billion dollars.  And overseas we have inherited a series of tragic foreign policy disasters.

Solving these and so many other pressing problems will require us to work past the differences of party.  It will require us to tap into the American spirit that has overcome every challenge throughout our long and storied history.  But to accomplish our goals at home and abroad, we must restart the engine of the American economy — making it easier for companies to do business in the United States, and much, much harder for companies to leave our country.  (Applause.)

Right now, American companies are taxed at one of the highest rates anywhere in the world.  My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.  (Applause.)  It will be a big, big cut.

At the same time, we will provide massive tax relief for the middle class.  We must create a level playing field for American companies and our workers.  We have to do it.  (Applause.)  Currently, when we ship products out of America, many other countries make us pay very high tariffs and taxes.  But when foreign companies ship their products into America, we charge them nothing, or almost nothing.

I just met with officials and workers from a great American company, Harley-Davidson.  In fact, they proudly displayed five of their magnificent motorcycles, made in the USA, on the front lawn of the White House.  ((Laughter and applause.)  And they wanted me to ride one and I said, “No, thank you.”  (Laughter.)

At our meeting, I asked them, how are you doing, how is business?  They said that it’s good.  I asked them further, how are you doing with other countries, mainly international sales?  They told me — without even complaining, because they have been so mistreated for so long that they’ve become used to it — that it’s very hard to do business with other countries because they tax our goods at such a high rate.  They said that in the case of another country, they taxed their motorcycles at 100 percent.  They weren’t even asking for a change.  But I am.  (Applause.)

I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be fair trade.  It’s been a long time since we had fair trade.  The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned that the “abandonment of the protective policy by the American government… will produce want and ruin among our people.”  Lincoln was right — and it’s time we heeded his advice and his words.  (Applause.)  I am not going to let America and its great companies and workers be taken advantage of us any longer.  They have taken advantage of our country.  No longer.  (Applause.)

I am going to bring back millions of jobs.  Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration.  (Applause.)  The current, outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers, and puts great pressure on taxpayers.  Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others, have a merit-based immigration system.  (Applause.)  It’s a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially.  Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon.  According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs American taxpayers many billions of dollars a year.

Switching away from this current system of lower-skilled immigration, and instead adopting a merit-based system, we will have so many more benefits.  It will save countless dollars, raise workers’ wages, and help struggling families — including immigrant families — enter the middle class.  And they will do it quickly, and they will be very, very happy, indeed.  (Applause.)

I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals:  To improve jobs and wages for Americans; to strengthen our nation’s security; and to restore respect for our laws.  If we are guided by the wellbeing of American citizens, then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.  (Applause.)

Another Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, initiated the last truly great national infrastructure program — the building of the Interstate Highway System.  The time has come for a new program of national rebuilding.  (Applause.)America has spent approximately $6 trillion in the Middle East — all the while our infrastructure at home is crumbling.  With this $6 trillion, we could have rebuilt our country twice, and maybe even three times if we had people who had the ability to negotiate.  (Applause.)

To launch our national rebuilding, I will be asking Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure of the United States — financed through both public and private capital — creating millions of new jobs.  (Applause.)  This effort will be guided by two core principles:  buy American and hire American.  (Applause.)

Tonight, I am also calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare — (applause) — with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and, at the same time, provide better healthcare.  (Applause.)

Mandating every American to buy government-approved health insurance was never the right solution for our country.  (Applause.)  The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the cost of health insurance, and that is what we are going do.  (Applause.)

Obamacare premiums nationwide have increased by double and triple digits.  As an example, Arizona went up 116 percent last year alone.  Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky just said Obamacare is failing in his state — the state of Kentucky — and it’s unsustainable and collapsing.

One-third of counties have only one insurer, and they are losing them fast.  They are losing them so fast.  They are leaving, and many Americans have no choice at all.  There’s no choice left.  Remember when you were told that you could keep your doctor and keep your plan?  We now know that all of those promises have been totally broken.   Obamacare is collapsing, and we must act decisively to protect all Americans.  (Applause.)

Action is not a choice, it is a necessity.  So I am calling on all Democrats and Republicans in Congress to work with us to save Americans from this imploding Obamacare disaster.  (Applause.)

Here are the principles that should guide the Congress as we move to create a better healthcare system for all Americans:

First, we should ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions have access to coverage, and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the healthcare exchanges.  (Applause.)

Secondly, we should help Americans purchase their own coverage through the use of tax credits and expanded Health Savings Accounts — but it must be the plan they want, not the plan forced on them by our government.  (Applause.)

Thirdly, we should give our great state governors the resources and flexibility they need with Medicaid to make sure no one is left out.  (Applause.)

Fourth, we should implement legal reforms that protect patients and doctors from unnecessary costs that drive up the price of insurance, and work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs, and bring them down immediately.  (Applause.)

And finally, the time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across state lines — (applause) — which will create a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring costs way down and provide far better care.  So important.

Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed.  Every problem can be solved.  And every hurting family can find healing and hope.

Our citizens deserve this, and so much more — so why not join forces and finally get the job done, and get it done right?  (Applause.)  On this and so many other things, Democrats and Republicans should get together and unite for the good of our country and for the good of the American people.  (Applause.)

My administration wants to work with members of both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents that they have paid family leave — (applause) — to invest in women’s health, and to promote clean air and clean water, and to rebuild our military and our infrastructure.  (Applause.)

True love for our people requires us to find common ground, to advance the common good, and to cooperate on behalf of every American child who deserves a much brighter future.

An incredible young woman is with us this evening, who should serve as an inspiration to us all.  Today is Rare Disease Day, and joining us in the gallery is a rare disease survivor, Megan Crowley.  (Applause.)

Megan was diagnosed with Pompe disease, a rare and serious illness, when she was 15 months old.  She was not expected to live past five.  On receiving this news, Megan’s dad, John, fought with everything he had to save the life of his precious child.  He founded a company to look for a cure, and helped develop the drug that saved Megan’s life.  Today she is 20 years old and a sophomore at Notre Dame.  (Applause.)

Megan’s story is about the unbounded power of a father’s love for a daughter.  But our slow and burdensome approval process at the Food and Drug Administration keeps too many advances, like the one that saved Megan’s life, from reaching those in need.  If we slash the restraints, not just at the FDA but across our government, then we will be blessed with far more miracles just like Megan.  (Applause.)  In fact, our children will grow up in a nation of miracles.

But to achieve this future, we must enrich the mind and the souls of every American child.  Education is the civil rights issue of our time.  (Applause.)  I am calling upon members of both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth, including millions of African American and Latino children.  (Applause.)  These families should be free to choose the public, private, charter, magnet, religious, or home school that is right for them.  (Applause.)

Joining us tonight in the gallery is a remarkable woman, Denisha Merriweather.  As a young girl, Denisha struggled in school and failed third grade twice.  But then she was able to enroll in a private center for learning — a great learning center — with the help of a tax credit and a scholarship program.

Today, she is the first in her family to graduate, not just from high school, but from college.  Later this year she will get her master’s degree in social work.  We want all children to be able to break the cycle of poverty just like Denisha.  (Applause.)

But to break the cycle of poverty, we must also break the cycle of violence.  The murder rate in 2015 experienced its largest single-year increase in nearly half a century.  In Chicago, more than 4,000 people were shot last year alone, and the murder rate so far this year has been even higher.  This is not acceptable in our society.  (Applause.)

Every American child should be able to grow up in a safe community, to attend a great school, and to have access to a high-paying job.  (Applause.)  But to create this future, we must work with, not against — not against — the men and women of law enforcement.  (Applause.)  We must build bridges of cooperation and trust — not drive the wedge of disunity and, really, it’s what it is, division.  It’s pure, unadulterated division.  We have to unify.

Police and sheriffs are members of our community.  They’re friends and neighbors, they’re mothers and fathers, sons and daughters — and they leave behind loved ones every day who worry about whether or not they’ll come home safe and sound.  We must support the incredible men and women of law enforcement.  (Applause.)

And we must support the victims of crime.  I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American victims.  The office is called VOICE — Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement.  We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media and silenced by special interests.  (Applause.)  Joining us in the audience tonight are four very brave Americans whose government failed them.  Their names are Jamiel Shaw, Susan Oliver, Jenna Oliver, and Jessica Davis.

Jamiel’s 17-year-old son was viciously murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member who had just been released from prison.  Jamiel Shaw, Jr. was an incredible young man, with unlimited potential who was getting ready to go to college where he would have excelled as a great college quarterback.  But he never got the chance.  His father, who is in the audience tonight, has become a very good friend of mine.  Jamiel, thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

Also with us are Susan Oliver and Jessica Davis.  Their husbands, Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver and Detective Michael Davis, were slain in the line of duty in California.  They were pillars of their community.  These brave men were viciously gunned down by an illegal immigrant with a criminal record and two prior deportations.  Should have never been in our country.

Sitting with Susan is her daughter, Jenna.  Jenna, I want you to know that your father was a hero, and that tonight you have the love of an entire country supporting you and praying for you.  (Applause.)

To Jamiel, Jenna, Susan and Jessica, I want you to know that we will never stop fighting for justice.  Your loved ones will never, ever be forgotten.  We will always honor their memory.  (Applause.)

Finally, to keep America safe, we must provide the men and women of the United States military with the tools they need to prevent war — if they must — they have to fight and they only have to win.  (Applause.)

I am sending Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the defense sequester — (applause) — and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.  My budget will also increase funding for our veterans.  Our veterans have delivered for this nation, and now we must deliver for them.  (Applause.)

The challenges we face as a nation are great, but our people are even greater.  And none are greater or braver than those who fight for America in uniform.  (Applause.)

We are blessed to be joined tonight by Carryn Owens, the widow of a U.S. Navy Special Operator, Senior Chief William “Ryan” Owens.  Ryan died as he lived:  a warrior and a hero, battling against terrorism and securing our nation.  (Applause.)  I just spoke to our great General Mattis, just now, who reconfirmed that — and I quote — “Ryan was a part of a highly successful raid that generated large amounts of vital intelligence that will lead to many more victories in the future against our enemies.”  Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  And Ryan is looking down, right now — you know that — and he is very happy because I think he just broke a record.  (Laughter and applause.)

For as the Bible teaches us, “There is no greater act of love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”  Ryan laid down his life for his friends, for his country, and for our freedom.  And we will never forget Ryan.  (Applause.)

To those allies who wonder what kind of a friend America will be, look no further than the heroes who wear our uniform.  Our foreign policy calls for a direct, robust and meaningful engagement with the world.  It is American leadership based on vital security interests that we share with our allies all across the globe.

We strongly support NATO, an alliance forged through the bonds of two world wars that dethroned fascism, and a Cold War, and defeated communism.  (Applause.)

But our partners must meet their financial obligations.  And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.  In fact, I can tell you, the money is pouring in.  Very nice.  (Applause.)  We expect our partners — whether in NATO, the Middle East, or in the Pacific — to take a direct and meaningful role in both strategic and military operations, and pay their fair share of the cost.  Have to do that.

We will respect historic institutions, but we will respect the foreign rights of all nations, and they have to respect our rights as a nation also.  (Applause.)  Free nations are the best vehicle for expressing the will of the people, and America respects the right of all nations to chart their own path.  My job is not to represent the world.  My job is to represent the United States of America. (Applause.)

But we know that America is better off when there is less conflict, not more.  We must learn from the mistakes of the past.  We have seen the war and the destruction that have ravaged and raged throughout the world — all across the world.  The only long-term solution for these humanitarian disasters, in many cases, is to create the conditions where displaced persons can safely return home and begin the long, long process of rebuilding.  (Applause.)

America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align.  We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict.  We want peace, wherever peace can be found.

America is friends today with former enemies.  Some of our closest allies, decades ago, fought on the opposite side of these terrible, terrible wars.  This history should give us all faith in the possibilities for a better world.  Hopefully, the 250th year for America will see a world that is more peaceful, more just, and more free.

On our 100th anniversary, in 1876, citizens from across our nation came to Philadelphia to celebrate America’s centennial.  At that celebration, the country’s builders and artists and inventors showed off their wonderful creations.  Alexander Graham Bell displayed his telephone for the first time.  Remington unveiled the first typewriter.  An early attempt was made at electric light.  Thomas Edison showed an automatic telegraph and an electric pen.  Imagine the wonders our country could know in America’s 250th year.  (Applause.)

Think of the marvels we can achieve if we simply set free the dreams of our people.  Cures to the illnesses that have always plagued us are not too much to hope.  American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream.  Millions lifted from welfare to work is not too much to expect.  And streets where mothers are safe from fear, schools where children learn in peace, and jobs where Americans prosper and grow are not too much to ask.  (Applause.)

When we have all of this, we will have made America greater than ever before — for all Americans.  This is our vision.  This is our mission.  But we can only get there together.  We are one people, with one destiny.  We all bleed the same blood.  We all salute the same great American flag.  And we all are made by the same God.  (Applause.)

When we fulfill this vision, when we celebrate our 250 years of glorious freedom, we will look back on tonight as when this new chapter of American Greatness began.  The time for small thinking is over.  The time for trivial fights is behind us.  We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts, the bravery to express the hopes that stir our souls, and the confidence to turn those hopes and those dreams into action.

From now on, America will be empowered by our aspirations, not burdened by our fears; inspired by the future, not bound by the failures of the past; and guided by our vision, not blinded by our doubts.

I am asking all citizens to embrace this renewal of the American spirit.  I am asking all members of Congress to join me in dreaming big, and bold, and daring things for our country.  I am asking everyone watching tonight to seize this moment.  Believe in yourselves, believe in your future, and believe, once more, in America.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States.  (Applause.)

END
10:09 P.M. EST

Full Text Political Transcripts February 28, 2017: President Donald J. Trump to Address a Joint Session of Congress for the First Time

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

President Donald J. Trump to Address a Joint Session of Congress for the First Time

JSOC Everything You Need to Know Blog Header

President Donald J. Trump will be delivering his first address to a Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday, February 28, 2017. Be sure to tune in as the President will be sharing his vision for the country.

When: Tuesday, February 28, 2017, at 9 p.m.

Where: The United States Capitol in the House Chamber, also known as the “Hall of the House of Representatives.”

Who: The President will address Members of both the House of Representatives and Senate in his first address to a Joint Session of Congress.

The Speech: President Trump is keeping the tradition of previous Presidents by delivering a formal address to a Joint Session of Congress during his inaugural year, and will deliver his first State of the Union address in 2018. The President will deliver his speech from the Speaker’s rostrum.

How to watch: The address will be streamed live at http://www.whitehouse.gov

How to participate: Follow along live on Twitter @WhiteHouse and @POTUS for real-time information before, during and after the speech. The speech will also be live streamed at facebook.com/WhiteHouse.

United States Capitol Building

“This will be an opportunity for the people and their representatives to hear directly from our new President about his vision and our shared agenda.” – Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Paul D. Ryan

During his first Joint Address to Congress, the President will communicate his vision for the future of the country directly to the American people as he moves forward with his plans to take on the many challenges facing this nation. Building on his inaugural address, President Trump will continue to lay out his agenda to Make America Great Again.

In just one month, President Trump’s Administration has already accomplished so much, including the following:

  • Reviving key job-creating energy projects such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.
  • Eliminating costly Obama-era regulations such as the “Stream Protection Rule.”
  • Minimizing the economic burden of Obamacare while clearing the path toward repeal and replace.
  • Directing the Department of Defense to develop a plan to defeat ISIS.
  • Standing with American workers by withdrawing from the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  • Enacting common sense regulatory reform by ordering any new regulations be offset by the repeal of two other regulations.
  • Building his Cabinet and Administration with the highest quality individuals to help implement the President’s vision for the country.
  • Establishing new ethics commitments for all executive branch appointees to enforce a five-year lobbying ban and a permanent ban on lobbying for foreign governments.

Full Text Political Transcripts February 21, 2017: President Donald Trump’s Remarks at Press Conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by President Trump in Press Conference

Source: WH, 2-16-17

East Room

12:55 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  I just wanted to begin by mentioning that the nominee for Secretary of the Department of Labor will be Mr. Alex Acosta.  He has a law degree from Harvard Law School, was a great student.  Former clerk for Justice Samuel Alito.  And he has had a tremendous career.  He’s a member, and has been a member, of the National Labor Relations Board, and has been through Senate confirmation three times, confirmed — did very, very well.  And so Alex, I’ve wished him the best.  We just spoke.  And he’s going to be — I think he’ll be a tremendous Secretary of Labor.

And also, as you probably heard just a little while ago, Mick Mulvaney, former congressman, has just been approved — weeks late, I have to say that.  Weeks, weeks late.  Office of Management and Budget.  And he will be, I think, a fantastic addition.  Paul Singer has just left.  As you know, Paul was very much involved with the anti-Trump, or, as they say, “Never Trump.”  And Paul just left and he’s given us his total support.  And it’s all about unification.  We’re unifying the party, and hopefully we’re going to be able to unify the country.  It’s very important to me.  I’ve been talking about that for a long time, but it’s very, very important to me.  So I want to thank Paul Singer for being here and for coming up to the office.  He was a very strong opponent, and now he’s a very strong ally.  And I appreciate that.

I think I’ll say a few words, and then we’ll take some questions.  And I had this time — we’ve been negotiating a lot of different transactions to save money on contracts that were terrible, including airplane contracts that were out of control and late and terrible.  Just absolutely catastrophic in terms of what was happening.  And we’ve done some really good work.  We’re very proud of that.

And then right after that, you prepare yourselves and we’ll do some questions — unless you have no questions.  That’s always a possibility.

I’m here today to update the American people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my inauguration.  We have made incredible progress.  I don’t think there’s ever been a President elected who, in this short period of time, has done what we’ve done.

A new Rasmussen poll, in fact — because the people get it; much of the media doesn’t get it.  They actually get it, but they don’t write it — let’s put it that way.  But a new Rasmussen poll just came out just a very short while ago, and it has our approval rating at 55 percent and going up.  The stock market has hit record numbers, as you know.  And there has been a tremendous surge of optimism in the business world, which is — to me means something much different than it used to.  It used to mean, oh, that’s good.  Now it means that’s good for jobs.  Very different.  Plants and factories are already starting to move back into the United States and big league — Ford, General Motors, so many of them.

I’m making this presentation directly to the American people with the media present, which is an honor to have you this morning, because many of our nation’s reporters and folks will not tell you the truth and will not treat the wonderful people of our country with the respect that they deserve.  And I hope going forward we can be a little bit different, and maybe get along a little bit better, if that’s possible.  Maybe it’s not, and that’s okay too.

Unfortunately, much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles, in particular, speaks not for the people but for the special interests and for those profiting off a very, very obviously broken system.  The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about it, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people — tremendous disservice.  We have to talk about it to find out what’s going on, because the press honestly is out of control.  The level of dishonesty is out of control.

I ran for President to represent the citizens of our country.  I am here to change the broken system so it serves their families and their communities well.  I am talking, and really talking, on this very entrenched power structure, and what we’re doing is we’re talking about the power structure, we’re talking about its entrenchment.  As a result, the media is going through what they have to go through to oftentimes distort — not all the time — and some of the media is fantastic, I have to say; they’re honest and fantastic.  But much of it is not — the distortion.  And we’ll talk about it, and you’ll be able to ask me questions about it.

But we’re not going to let it happen, because I’m here again to take my message straight to the people.  As you know, our administration inherited many problems across government and across the economy.  To be honest, I inherited a mess — it’s a mess — at home and abroad.  A mess.  Jobs are pouring out of the country.  You see what’s going on with all of the companies leaving our country, going to Mexico and other places — low-pay, low-wages.  Mass instability overseas, no matter where you look.  The Middle East, a disaster.  North Korea — we’ll take care of it, folks.  We’re going to take care of it all.  I just want to let you know I inherited a mess.

Beginning on day one, our administration went to work to tackle these challenges.  On foreign affairs, we’ve already begun enormously productive talks with many foreign leaders — much of it you’ve covered — to move forward toward stability, security, and peace in the most troubled regions of the world, which there are many.

We’ve had great conversations with the United Kingdom — and meetings — Israel, Mexico, Japan, China, and Canada.  Really, really productive conversations.  I would say far more productive than you would understand.  We’ve even developed a new council with Canada to promote women’s business leaders and entrepreneurs.  It’s very important to me, very important to my daughter Ivanka.

I have directed our defense community, headed by our great general, now Secretary Mattis — he’s over there now, working very hard — to submit a plan for the defeat of ISIS, a group that celebrates the murder and torture of innocent people in large sections of the world.  It used to be a small group, and now it’s in large sections of the world.  They’ve spread like cancer.  ISIS has spread like cancer.  Another mess I inherited.

And we have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran, who’s totally taken advantage of our previous administration.  And they’re the world’s top sponsor of terrorism.  And we’re not going to stop until that problem is properly solved.  And it’s not properly solved now.  It’s one of the worst agreements I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody.

I’ve ordered plans to begin for the massive rebuilding of the United States military.  I’ve had great support from the Senate.  I’ve had great support from Congress generally.  We’ve pursued this rebuilding in the hopes that we will never have to use this military.  And I will tell you that is my — I would be so happy if we never had to use it.  But our country will never have had a military like the military we’re about to build and rebuild.  We have the greatest people on Earth in our military, but they don’t have the right equipment.  And their equipment is old.  I used it, I talked about it at every stop.  Depleted — it’s depleted.  It won’t be depleted for long.

And I think one of the reasons I’m standing here instead of other people is that, frankly, I talked about we have to have a strong military.  We have to have strong law enforcement also.  So we do not go abroad in the search of war.  We really are searching for peace, but it’s peace through strength.

At home, we have begun the monumental task of returning the government back to the people on a scale not seen in many, many years.  In each of these actions, I’m keeping my promises to the American people.  These are campaign promises.  Some people are so surprised that we’re having strong borders.  Well, that’s what I’ve been talking about for a year and a half — strong borders.  They’re so surprised — “oh, you’re having strong borders.”  Well, that’s what I’ve been talking about to the press and to everybody else.

One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected.  They lie to the American people in order to get elected.  Some of the things I’m doing probably aren’t popular, but they’re necessary for security and for other reasons.  And then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests, which is more important to many politicians.

I’m here following through on what I pledged to do.  That’s all I’m doing.  I put it out before the American people.  Got 306 Electoral College votes.  I wasn’t supposed to get 222.  They said there’s no way to get 222; 230 is impossible.  Two hundred and seventy, which you need, that was laughable.  We got 306 because people came out and voted like they’ve never seen before.  So that’s the way it goes.  I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan.

In other words, the media is trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made, and they’re not happy about it for whatever reason.  But a lot of people are happy about it.  In fact, I’ll be in Melbourne, Florida, five o’clock on Saturday, and I heard — just heard that the crowds are massive that want to be there.

I turn on the TV, open the newspapers, and I see stories of chaos.  Chaos!  Yet, it is the exact opposite.  This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine, despite the fact that I can’t get my Cabinet approved, and they’re outstanding people.  Like Senator Dan Coates whose there — one of the most respected men of the Senate — he can’t get approved.  How do you not approve him?  He’s been a colleague, highly respected — brilliant guy, great guy, everybody knows it — but waiting for approval.

So we have a wonderful group of people that’s working very hard, that’s being very much misrepresented about, and we can’t let that happen.  So if the Democrats, who have — all you have to do is look at where they are right now — the only thing they can do is delay, because they’ve screwed things up royally, believe me.

Let me list to you some of the things that we’ve done in just a short period of time.  I just got here.  I got here with no Cabinet.  Again, each of these actions is a promise I made to the American people.  So we’ll go over just some of them, and we have a lot happening next week and in the weeks coming.  We’ve withdrawn from the job-killing disaster known as Trans-Pacific Partnership.  We’re going to make trade deals, but we’re going to have one-on-one deals — bilateral.  We’re going to have one-on-one deals.

We’ve directed the elimination of regulations that undermine manufacturing, and called for expedited approval of the permits needed for America and American infrastructure, and that means plants, equipment, roads, bridges, factories.  People take 10, 15, 20 years to get disapproved for a factory.  They go in for a permit — it’s many, many years.  And then at the end of the process — they spend tens of millions of dollars on nonsense — and at the end of the process, they get rejected.  Now, they may be rejected with me, but it’s going to be a quick rejection.  It’s not going to take years.  But mostly, it’s going to be an acceptance.  We want plants built, and we want factories built, and we want the jobs.  We don’t want the jobs going to other countries.

We’ve imposed a hiring freeze on nonessential federal workers.  We’ve imposed a temporary moratorium on new federal regulations.  We’ve issued a game-changing new rule that says for each one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.  Makes sense.  Nobody has ever seen regulations like we have.  If you go to other countries and you look at industries they have, and you say, let me see your regulations, and they’re a fraction, just a tiny fraction of what we have.  And I want regulations because I want safety, I want all environmental situations to be taken properly care of.  It’s very important to me.  But you don’t need four or five or six regulations to take care of the same thing.

We’ve stood up for the men and women of law enforcement, directing federal agencies to ensure they are protected from crimes of violence.  We’ve directed the creation of a task force for reducing violent crime in America, including the horrendous situation — take a look at Chicago and others — taking place right now in our inner cities.  Horrible.  We’ve ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice to coordinate on a plan to destroy criminal cartels coming into the United States with drugs.  We’re becoming a drug-infested nation.  Drugs are becoming cheaper than candy bars, and we’re not going to let it happen any longer.

We’ve undertaken the most substantial border security measures in a generation to keep our nation and our tax dollars safe, and are now in the process of beginning to build a promised wall on the southern border.  Met with General, now Secretary, Kelly yesterday and we’re starting that process.  And the wall is going to be a great wall, and it’s going to be a wall negotiated by me.  The price is going to come down, just like it has on everything else I’ve negotiated for the government.  And we’re going to have a wall that works.  We’re not going to have a wall like they have now, which is either nonexistent or a joke.

We’ve ordered a crackdown on sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal law and that harbor criminal aliens, and we’ve ordered an end to the policy of catch and release on the border.  No more release, no matter who you are — release.  We’ve begun a nationwide effort to remove criminal aliens, gang members, drug dealers, and others who pose a threat to public safety.  We are saving American lives every single day.  The court system has not made it easy for us.  And we’ve even created a new office in Homeland Security dedicated to the forgotten American victims of illegal immigrant violence, of which there are many.

We’ve taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of our country.  Though parts of our necessary and constitutional actions were blocked by a judge’s, in my opinion, incorrect and unsafe ruling, our administration is working night and day to keep you safe — including reporters safe — and is vigorously defending this lawful order.  I will not back down from defending our country.  I got elected on defense of our country.  And I keep my campaign promises.  And our citizens will be very happy when they see the result.  They already are.  I can tell you that.

Extreme vetting will be put in place, and it already is in place in many places.  In fact, we had to go quicker than we thought because of the bad decision we received from a circuit that has been overturned at a record number.  I’ve heard 80 percent — I find that hard to believe; that’s just a number I heard — that they’re overturned 80 percent of the time.  I think that circuit is in chaos and that circuit is, frankly, in turmoil.  But we are appealing that and we are going further.

We’re issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country, so we’ll be going along the one path and hopefully winning that.  At the same time, we will be issuing a new and very comprehensive order to protect our people, and that will be done some time next week, toward the beginning or middle at the latest part.

We’ve also taken steps to begin construction of the Keystone Pipeline and Dakota Access Pipelines — thousands and thousands of jobs — and put new “Buy American” measures in place to require American steel for American pipelines.  In other words, they build a pipeline in this country and we use the powers of government to make that pipeline happen.  We want them to use American steel.  And they’re willing to do that, but nobody ever asked before I came along.  Even this order was drawn and they didn’t say that.  And I’m reading the order, I’m saying, why aren’t we using American steel?  And they said, that’s a good idea.  We put it in.

To drain the swamp of corruption in Washington, D.C. I’ve started by imposing a five-year lobbying ban on White House officials and a lifetime ban on lobbying for a foreign government.  We’ve begun preparing to repeal and replace Obamacare.  Obamacare is a disaster, folks.  It’s a disaster.  You can say, oh, Obamacare — I mean, they fill up our alleys with people that you wonder how they get there, but they’re not the Republican people that our representatives are representing.  So we’ve begun preparing to repeal and replace Obamacare and are deep in the midst of negotiations on a very historic tax reform to bring our jobs back.  We’re bringing our jobs back to this country big league.  It’s already happening, but big league.

I’ve also worked to install a Cabinet over the delays and obstruction of Senate Democrats.  You’ve seen what they’ve done over the last long number of years.  That will be one of the great Cabinets ever assembled in American history.  You look at Rex Tillerson — he’s out there negotiating right now.  General Mattis I mentioned before, General Kelly.  We have great, great people.  Mick is with us now.  We have great people.

Among their responsibilities will be ending the bleeding of jobs from our country and negotiating fair trade deals for our citizens.  Now, look, fair trade — not free — fair.  If a country is taking advantage of us, we’re not going to let that happen anymore.  Every country takes advantage of us, almost.  I may be able to find a couple that don’t.  But for the most part, that would be a very tough job for me to do.

Jobs have already started to surge.  Since my election, Ford announced it will abandon its plans to build a new factory in Mexico and will instead invest $700 million in Michigan, creating many, many jobs.  Fiat-Chrysler announced it will invest $1 billion in Ohio and Michigan, creating 2,000 new American jobs.  They were with me a week ago.  You know — you were here.  General Motors, likewise, committed to invest billions of dollars in its American manufacturing operation, keeping many jobs here that were going to leave.  And if I didn’t get elected, believe me, they would have left.  And these jobs and these things that I’m announcing would never have come here.

Intel just announced that it will move ahead with a new plant in Arizona that probably was never going to move ahead with.  And that will result in at least 10,000 American jobs.  Walmart announced it will create 10,000 jobs in the United States just this year because of our various plans and initiatives.  There will be many, many more.  Many more.  These are a few that we’re naming.

Other countries have been taking advantage of us for decades — decades and decades and decades, folks.  And we’re not going to let that happen anymore.  Not going to let it happen.

And one more thing.  I have kept my promise to the American people by nominating a justice of the United States Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who is from my list of 20, and who will be a true defender of our laws and our Constitution — highly respected, should get the votes from the Democrats — you may not see that, but he’ll get there one way or the other.  But he should get there the old-fashioned way, and he should get those votes.

This last month has represented an unprecedented degree of action on behalf of the great citizens of our country.  Again, I say it — there has never been a presidency that’s done so much in such a short period of time.  And we haven’t even started the big work that starts early next week.  Some very big things are going to be announced next week.

So we’re just getting started.  We will be giving a speech, as I said, in Melbourne, Florida, at 5:00 p.m.  I hope to see you there.  And with that, I’d just say, God bless America, and let’s take some questions.

Mara.  Mara, go ahead.  You were cut off pretty violently at our last news conference.

Q    Did you fire Mike Flynn?

THE PRESIDENT:  Mike Flynn is a fine person, and I asked for his resignation.  He respectfully gave it.  He is a man who — there was a certain amount of information given to Vice President Pence, who is with us today.  And I was not happy with the way that information was given.

He didn’t have to do that, because what he did wasn’t wrong, what he did in terms of the information he saw.  What was wrong was the way that other people, including yourselves in this room, were given that information, because that was classified information that was given illegally.  That’s the real problem.  And you can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a fake news, fabricated deal to try and make up for the loss of the Democrats, and the press plays right into it.  In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with all of this — they know nothing about it.  They weren’t in Russia, they never made a phone call to Russia, they never received a phone call.  It’s all fake news.  It’s all fake news.

The nice thing is I see it starting to turn, where people are now looking at the illegal, Mara — and I think it’s very important — the illegal giving out classified information.  And let me just tell you, it was given out, like, so much.  I’ll give you an example.  I called, as you know, Mexico.  It was a very confidential, classified call, but I called Mexico.  And in calling Mexico, I figured, oh, well, that’s — I spoke to the President of Mexico, had a good call.  All of a sudden it’s out for the world to see.  It’s supposed to be secret.  It’s supposed to be either confidential or classified in that case.  Same thing with Australia.  All of a sudden people are finding out exactly what took place.

The same thing happened with respect to General Flynn.  Everybody saw this, and I’m saying — the first thing I thought of when I heard about it is, how does the press get this information that’s classified?  How do they do it?  You know why?  Because it’s an illegal process, and the press should be ashamed of themselves.  But, more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves.  Really ashamed.

Yes, go ahead.

Q    Why did you keep your Vice President in the dark for almost two weeks?

THE PRESIDENT:  Because when I looked at the information, I said, I don’t think he did anything wrong.  If anything, he did something right.  He was coming into office, he looked at the information.  He said, huh, that’s fine, that’s what they’re supposed to do.  They’re supposed to be — and he didn’t just call Russia.  He called and spoke to, both ways — I think there were 30-some-odd countries.  He’s doing the job.

You know, he was just doing his job.  The thing is he didn’t tell our Vice President properly, and then he said he didn’t remember.  So either way, it wasn’t very satisfactory to me.  And I have somebody that I think will be outstanding for the position, and that also helps, I think, in the making of my decision.

But he didn’t tell the Vice President of the United States the facts, and then he didn’t remember.  And that just wasn’t acceptable to me.

Yes.

Q    President Trump, since you brought up Russia, I’m looking for some clarification here.  During the campaign, did anyone from your team communicate with members of the Russian government or Russian intelligence?  And if so, what was the nature of those conversations?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the failing New York Times wrote a big, long front-page story yesterday.  And it was very much discredited, as you know.  It was — it’s a joke.  And the people mentioned in the story — I notice they were on television today saying they never even spoke to Russia.  They weren’t even a part, really — I mean, they were such a minor part — I hadn’t spoken to them.  I think the one person, I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to him.  I don’t think I’ve ever met him.  And he actually said he was a very low-level member of, I think, a committee for a short period of time.  I don’t think I ever met him.  Now, it’s possible that I walked into a room and he was sitting there, but I don’t think I ever met him.  I didn’t talk to him, ever.  And he thought it was a joke.

The other person said he never spoke to Russia, never received a call.  Look at his phone records, et cetera, et cetera.  And the other person, people knew that he’d represented various countries, but I don’t think he represented Russia — but knew that he represented various countries.  That’s what he does.  I mean, people know that.  That’s Mr. Manafort, who’s, by the way — who’s, by the way, a respected man.  He’s a respected man.  But I think he represented the Ukraine, or Ukraine government, or somebody.  But everybody — people knew that.  Everybody knew that.  So these people — and he said that he has absolutely nothing to do and never has with Russia.  And he said that very forcefully.  I saw his statement.  He said it very forcefully.  Most of the papers don’t print it because that’s not good for their stories.

So the three people that they talked about all totally deny it.  And I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia.  I have no loans in Russia.  I don’t have any deals in Russia.  President Putin called me up very nicely to congratulate me on the win of the election.  He then called me up extremely nicely to congratulate me on the inauguration, which was terrific.  But so did many other leaders — almost all other leaders from almost all other countries.  So that’s the extent.

Russia is fake news.  Russia — this is fake news put out by the media.  The real news is the fact that people, probably from the Obama administration because they’re there — because we have our new people going in place right now.  As you know, Mike Pompeo is now taking control of the CIA.  James Comey at FBI.  Dan Coats is waiting to be approved.  I mean, he is a senator, and a highly respected one.  And he’s still waiting to be approved.  But our new people are going in.

And just while you’re at, because you mentioned this, Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New Times’s story yesterday.  And it talked about — you saw it, front page.  So, Director of National Intelligence just put out — acting — a statement:  “Any suggestion that the United States intelligence community” — this was just given to us — “is withholding information and not providing the best possible intelligence to the President and his national security team is not true.”

So they took this front-page story out of The Wall Street Journal — top — and they just wrote the story is not true.  And I’ll tell you something, I’ll be honest — because I sort of enjoy this back and forth, and I guess I have all my life, but I’ve never seen more dishonest media than, frankly, the political media.  I thought the financial media was much better, much more honest.  But I will say that I never get phone calls from the media.  How do they write a story like that in The Wall Street Journal without asking me?  Or how do they write a story in The New York Times, put it on front page?  That was like that story they wrote about the women and me — front page.  Big massive story.  And it was nasty.

And then they called.  They said, “We never said that.  We like Mr. Trump.”  They called up my office — we like Mr. Trump; we never said that.  And it was totally — they totally misrepresented those very wonderful women, I have to tell you — totally misrepresented.  I said, give us a retraction.  They never gave us a retraction.  And, frankly, I then went on to other things.

Go ahead.

Q    Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT:  You okay?

Q    I am.  Just wanted to get untangled.  Very simply, you said today that you had the biggest electoral margins since Ronald Reagan with 304 or 306 electoral votes.  In fact, President Obama got 365 in 2008.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’m talking about Republican.  Yes.

Q    President Obama, 332.  George H.W. Bush, 426 when he won as President.  So why should Americans trust —

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, no, I was told — I was given that information.  I don’t know.  I was just given.  We had a very, very big margin.

Q    I guess my question is, why should Americans trust you when you have accused the information they receive of being fake when you’re providing information that’s fake?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don’t know.  I was given that information.  I was given — actually, I’ve seen that information around.  But it was a very substantial victory.  Do you agree with that?

Q    You’re the President.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, thank you.  That’s a good answer.  Yes.

Q    Mr. President, thank you so much.  Can you tell us in determining that Lieutenant General Flynn — there was no wrongdoing in your mind, what evidence was weighed?  Did you have the transcripts of these telephone intercepts with Russian officials, particularly Ambassador Kislyak, who he was communicating with?  What evidence did you weigh to determine there was no wrong doing?

And further than that, sir, you’ve said on a couple of occasions this morning that you were going to aggressively pursue the sources of these leaks.

THE PRESIDENT:  We are.

Q    Can we ask what you’re doing to do?  And also, we’ve heard about a review of the intelligence community headed by Stephen Feinberg.  What can you tell us about that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, about that, we now have Dan Coats, hopefully soon Mike Pompeo and James Comey, and they’re in position.  So I hope that we’ll be able to straighten that out without using anybody else.  The gentleman you mentioned is a very talented man, very successful man.  And he has offered his services, and it’s something we may take advantage of.  But I don’t think we’ll need that at all because of the fact that I think that we’re going to be able to straighten it out very easily on its own.

As far as the general is concerned, when I first heard about it, I said, huh, that doesn’t sound wrong.  My counsel came — Don McGahn, White House Counsel — and he told me, and I asked him, and he can speak very well for himself.  He said he doesn’t think anything is wrong.  He really didn’t think — it was really what happened after that, but he didn’t think anything was done wrong.  I didn’t either, because I waited a period of time and I started to think about it.  I said, well, I don’t see — to me, he was doing the job.

The information was provided by — who I don’t know — Sally Yates — and I was a little surprised because I said, doesn’t sound like he did anything wrong there.  But he did something wrong with respect to the Vice President, and I thought that was not acceptable.  As far as the actual making the call — in fact, I’ve watched various programs and I’ve read various articles where he was just doing his job.  That was very normal.  At first, everybody got excited because they thought he did something wrong.  After they thought about it, it turned out he was just doing his job.

So — and I do — and, by the way, with all of that being said, I do think he’s a fine man.

Yes, Jon.

Q    On the leaks, sir —

THE PRESIDENT:  Go ahead, finish off, then I’ll get you, Jon.

Q    Sorry, what will you do on the leaks?  You have said twice today —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, we’re looking at it very, very seriously.  I’ve gone to all of the folks in charge of the various agencies, and we’re — I’ve actually called the Justice Department to look into the leaks.  Those are criminal leaks.  They’re put out by people either in agencies.  I think you’ll see it stopping because now we have our people in.  You know, again, we don’t have our people in because we can’t get them approved by the Senate.  We just had Jeff Sessions approved in Justice, as an example.  So we are looking into that very seriously.  It’s a criminal act.

You know what I say — when I was called out on Mexico, I was shocked.  Because all this equipment, all this incredible phone equipment.  When I was called out on Mexico, I was — honestly, I was really, really surprised.  But I said, you know, it doesn’t make sense, that won’t happen.  But that wasn’t that important to call, it was fine.  I could show it to the world and he could show it to the world — the President who is a very fine man, by the way.  Same thing with Australia.  I said, that’s terrible that it was leaked but it wasn’t that important.  But then I said, what happens when I’m dealing with the problem of North Korea?  What happens when I’m dealing with the problems in the Middle East?  Are you folks going to be reporting all of that very, very confidential information — very important, very — I mean, at the highest level, are you going to be reporting about that too?

So I don’t want classified information getting out to the public.  And in a way, that was almost a test.  So I’m dealing with Mexico.  I’m dealing with Argentina.  We were dealing on this case with Mike Flynn.  All this information gets put into the Washington Post and gets put into the New York Times.  And I’m saying, what’s going to happen when I’m dealing on the Middle East?  What’s going to happen when I’m dealing with really, really important subjects like North Korea?  We’ve got to stop it.  That’s why it’s a criminal penalty.

Yes, Jon.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I just want to get you to clarify just a very important point.  Can you say definitively that nobody on your campaign had any contacts with the Russians during the campaign?  And, on the leaks, is it fake news or are these real leaks?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the leaks are real.  You’re the one that wrote about them and reported them.  I mean, the leaks are real.  You know what they said — you saw it.  And the leaks are absolutely real.  The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.

So one thing that I felt it was very important to do — and I hope we can correct it, because there is nobody I have more respect for — well, maybe a little bit — than reporters, than good reporters.  It’s very important to me, and especially in this position.  It’s very important.  I don’t mind bad stories.  I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it’s true.  And over a course of time, I’ll make mistakes and you’ll write badly and I’m okay with that.  But I’m not okay when it is fake.  I mean, I watch CNN — it’s so much anger and hatred and just the hatred.  I don’t watch it anymore because it’s very good — he’s saying no.  It’s okay, Jim.  It’s okay, Jim.  You’ll have your chance.  But I watch others too.  You’re not the only one, so don’t feel badly.

But I think it should be straight.  I think it should be — I think it would be, frankly, more interesting.  I know how good everybody’s ratings are right now, but I think that actually would be — I think that it would actually be better.

People — I mean, you have a lower approval rate than Congress.  I think that’s right.  I don’t know, Peter, is that one right?  Because you know, I think they have lower — I heard, lower than Congress.

But honestly, the public would appreciate it.  I’d appreciate it.  Again, I don’t mind bad stories when it’s true.  But we have an administration where the Democrats are making it very difficult.  I think we’re setting a record, or close to a record in the time of approval of a Cabinet.  I mean, the numbers are crazy.  When I’m looking — some of them had them approved immediately.  I’m going forever, and I still have a lot of people that we’re waiting for.

And that’s all they’re doing, is delaying.  And you look at Schumer and the mess that he’s got over there, and they have nothing going.  The only thing they can do is delay.  And you know, I think they’d be better served by approving and making sure that they’re happy and everybody is good.  And sometimes, I mean — I know President Obama lost three or four, and you lose them on the way.  And that’s okay.  That’s fine.

But I think they would be much better served, Jon, if they just went through the process quickly.  This is pure delay tactics.  And they say it, and everybody understands it.

Yeah, go ahead, Jim.

Q    The first part of my question on contacts.  Do you definitively say that nobody —

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I had nothing to do with it.  I have nothing to do with Russia.  I told you, I have no deals there.  I have no anything.

Now, when WikiLeaks, which I had nothing to do with, comes out and happens to give — they’re not giving classified information.  They’re giving stuff — what was said at an office about Hillary cheating on the debates — which, by the way, nobody mentions.  Nobody mentions that Hillary received the questions to the debates.

Can you imagine — seriously, can you imagine if I received the questions?  It would be the electric chair, okay?  “He should be put in the electric chair.”  You would even call for the reinstitution of the death penalty, okay?  Maybe not you, Jon.

Yes, we’ll do you next, Jim.  I’ll do you next.  Yes?

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I just want to clarify one other thing.

THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.

Q    Did you direct Mike Flynn to discuss the sanctions with the Russian ambassador?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I didn’t.  No, I didn’t.

Q    (Inaudible.)  (Off mic.)

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I didn’t.

Q    Did you fire him because (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT:  Excuse me — no, I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence, very simple.  Mike was doing his job.  He was calling countries and his counterparts.  So it certainly would have been okay with me if he did it.  I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it.  I didn’t direct him but I would have directed him because that’s his job.

And it came out that way — and, in all fairness, I watched Dr. Charles Krauthammer the other night say he was doing his job.  And I agreed with him.  And since then I’ve watched many other people say that.

No, I didn’t direct him, but I would have directed him if he didn’t do it, okay?

Jim.

Q    Mr. President, thank you very much.  And just for the record, we don’t hate you, I don’t hate you.  If you could pass that along.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  Well, ask Jeff Zucker how he got his job, okay?

Q    If I may follow up on some of the questions that have taken place so far, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, not too many.  We do have other people.  You do have other people, and your ratings aren’t as good as some of the other people that are waiting.

Q    They’re pretty good right now, actually.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  Go ahead, Jim.

Q    If I may ask, sir, you said earlier that WikiLeaks was revealing information about the Hillary Clinton campaign during the election cycle.  You welcomed that at one point.

THE PRESIDENT:  I was okay with it.

Q    You said you loved WikiLeaks.  At another campaign press conference you called on the Russians to find the missing 30,000 emails.  I’m wondering, sir, if you —

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, she was actually missing 33,000, and then that got extended with a whole pile after that, but that’s okay.

Q    Maybe my numbers are off a little bit too.

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, but I did say 30,000, but it was actually higher than that.

Q    If I may ask you, sir, it sounds as though you do not have much credibility here when it comes to leaking if that is something that you encouraged in the campaign.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, fair question.  Ready?

Q    So if I may ask you that — if I may ask a follow-up —

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, but are you — let me do one at a time.  Do you mind?

Q    Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  All right.  So in one case you’re talking about highly classified information.  In the other case you’re talking about John Podesta saying bad things about the boss.  I will say this:  If John Podesta said that about me and he was working for me, I would have fired him so fast your head would have spun.  He said terrible things about her.  But it wasn’t classified information.

But in one case you’re talking about classified.  Regardless, if you look at the RNC, we had a very strong — at my suggestion — and I give Reince great credit for this — at my suggestion, because I know something about this world, I said I want a very strong defensive mechanism.  I don’t want to be hacked.  And we did that, and you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed.

The DNC did not do that.  And if they did it, they could not have been hacked.  But they were hacked, and terrible things came.  And the only thing that I do think is unfair is some of the things were so — they were — when I heard some of those things, I said — I picked up the papers the next morning, I said, oh, this is going to front page.  It wasn’t even in the papers.

Again, if I had that happen to me, it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or the head of newspapers.  I would have been the headline in every newspaper.

I mean, think of it.  They gave her the questions for the debate, and she should have reported herself.  Why didn’t Hillary Clinton announce that, “I’m sorry, but I have been given the questions to a debate or a town hall, and I feel that it’s inappropriate, and I want to turn in CNN for not doing a good job”?

Q    And if I may follow up on that, just something that Jonathan Karl was asking you about — you said that the leaks are real, but the news is fake.  I guess I don’t understand.  It seems that there is a disconnect there.  If the information coming from those leaks is real, then how can the stories be fake?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the reporting is fake.  Look, look —

Q    And if I may ask — I just want to ask one other question.

THE PRESIDENT:  Jim, you know what it is?  Here’s the thing.  The public isn’t — they read newspapers, they see television, they watch.  They don’t know if it’s true or false because they’re not involved.  I’m involved.  I’ve been involved with this stuff all my life.  But I’m involved.  So I know when you’re telling the truth or when you’re not.

I just see many, many untruthful things.  And I tell you what else I see.  I see tone.  You know the word “tone.”  The tone is such hatred.  I’m really not a bad person, by the way.  No, but the tone is such — I do get good ratings, you have to admit that.  The tone is such hatred.

I watched this morning a couple of the networks, and I have to say “Fox & Friends” in the morning, they’re very honorable people.  They’re very — not because they’re good, because they hit me also when I do something wrong.  But they have the most honest morning show.  That’s all I can say.  It’s the most honest.  But the tone, Jim.  If you look — the hatred.  I mean, sometimes — sometimes somebody gets —

Q    (Off mic.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10 o’clock in the evening.  You just take a look at that show.  That is a constant hit.  The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump.  The good news is he doesn’t have good ratings.  But the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump.  And the hatred and venom coming from his mouth, the hatred coming from other people on your network.

Now, I will say this.  I watch it.  I see it.  I’m amazed by it.  And I just think you’d be a lot better off — I honestly do.  The public gets it, you know.  Look, when I go to rallies, they turn around, they start screaming at CNN.  They want to throw their placards at CNN.

I think you would do much better by being different.  But you just take a look.  Take a look at some of your shows in the morning and the evening.  If a guest comes out and says something positive about me, it’s brutal.

Now, they’ll take this news conference.  I’m actually having a very good time, okay?  But they’ll take this news conference — don’t forget that’s the way I won.  Remember, I used to give you a news conference every time I made a speech, which was like every day.

Q    (Off mic.)

THE PRESIDENT:  No, that’s how I won.  I won with news conferences and probably speeches.  I certainly didn’t win by people listening to you people, that’s for sure.

But I am having a good time.  Tomorrow they will say, Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.  I’m not ranting and raving.  I’m just telling you, you’re dishonest people.  But — but I’m not ranting and raving.  I love this.  I’m having a good time doing it.  But tomorrow the headlines are going to be:  Donald Trump Rants and Raves.  I’m not ranting and raving.

Q    If I may just —

THE PRESIDENT:  Go ahead.

Q    One more follow-up because —

THE PRESIDENT:  Should I let him have a little bit more?  What do you think, Peter?

Q    Just because of this —

THE PRESIDENT:  Peter, should I have let him have a little bit more?  Sit down.  Sit down.

Q    Just because of the attack —

THE PRESIDENT:  We’ll get it.

Q    Just because of the attack of fake news and attacking our network, I just want to ask you, sir —

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m changing it from fake news, though.

Q    Doesn’t that undermine —

THE PRESIDENT:  Very fake news now.  (Laughter.)

Q    But aren’t you —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, go ahead.

Q    Real news, Mr. President.  Real news.

THE PRESIDENT:  And you’re not related to our new —

Q    I am not related, sir, no.  (Laughter.)  I do like the sound of Secretary Acosta, I must say.

THE PRESIDENT:  I looked — you know, I looked at that name.  I said, wait a minute, is there any relation there?  Alex Acosta.

Q    I’m sure you checked that out, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I checked it.  I said — they said, no, sir.  I said, do me a favor, go back and check the family tree.

Q    But aren’t you concerned, sir, that you are undermining the people’s faith in the First Amendment freedom of the press, the press in this country when you call stories you don’t like “fake news”?  Why not just say it’s a story I don’t like?

THE PRESIDENT:  I do that.

Q    When you call it fake news, you’re undermining confidence —

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I do that.  No, no, I do that.

Q    — in our news media.

THE PRESIDENT:  Here’s the thing.

Q    Isn’t that important?

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, I understand — and you’re right about that except this.  See, I know when I should get good and when I should get bad.  And sometimes I’ll say, wow, that’s going to be a great story, and I’ll get killed.  I know what’s good and bad.  I’d be a pretty good reporter — not as good as you.  But I know what’s good.  I know what’s bad.

And when they change it and make it really bad — something that should be positive.  Sometimes something that should be very positive, they’ll make okay.  They’ll even make it negative.  So I understand it because I’m there.  I know what was said.  I know who is saying it.  I’m there.  So it’s very important to me.

Look, I want to see an honest press.  When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press.  The press — the public doesn’t believe you people anymore.  Now, maybe I had something to do with that, I don’t know.  But they don’t believe you.

If you were straight and really told it like it is, as Howard Cosell used to say, right?  Of course, he had some questions also.  But if you were straight, I would be your biggest booster, I would be your biggest fan in the world — including bad stories about me.  But if you go — as an example, you’re CNN — I mean, it’s story after story after story is bad.  I won.  I won.  And the other thing:  Chaos.  There’s zero chaos.  We are running — this is a fine-tuned machine.  And Reince happens to be doing a good job.  But half of his job is putting out lies by the press.

I said to him yesterday, this whole Russia scam that you guys are building so that you don’t talk about the real subject, which is illegal leaks.  But I watched him yesterday working so hard to try and get that story proper.  And I’m saying, here’s my Chief of Staff, a really good guy, did a phenomenal job at RNC.  I mean, we won the election, right?  We won the presidency.  We got some senators.  We got some — all over the country, you take a look, he’s done a great job.

And I said to myself, you know — and I said to somebody that was in the room — I said, you take a look at Reince, he’s working so hard just putting out fires that are fake fires.  They’re fake.  They’re not true.  And isn’t that a shame, because he’d rather be working on health care.  He’d rather be working on tax reform, Jim.  I mean that.  I would be your biggest fan in the world if you treated me right.  I sort of understand there’s a certain bias, maybe by Jeff or somebody — for whatever reason.  And I understand that.  But you’ve got to be at least a little bit fair.  And that’s why the public sees it — they see it.  They see it’s not fair.  You take a look at some of your shows and you see the bias and the hatred.  And the public is smart.  They understand it.

Okay, yeah, go ahead.

Q    We have no doubt that your latest story is (inaudible).  But for those who believe that there is something to it, is there anything that you have learned over these last few weeks that you might be able to reveal that might ease their concerns that this isn’t fake news?  And secondly —

THE PRESIDENT:  I think they don’t believe it.  I don’t think the public would.  That’s why the Rasmussen poll just has me through the roof.  I don’t think they believe it.  Well, I guess one of the reasons I’m here today is to tell you the whole Russian thing — that’s a ruse.  That’s a ruse.  And, by the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia, just so you understand that.  Now, tomorrow you’ll say, Donald Trump wants to get along with Russia, this is terrible.  It’s not terrible — it’s good.

We had Hillary Clinton try and do a reset.  We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country.  You know what uranium is, right?  It’s this thing called nuclear weapons and other things.  Like, lots of things are done with uranium, including some bad things.  Nobody talks about that.  I didn’t do anything for Russia.  I’ve done nothing for Russia.  Hillary Clinton gave them 20 percent of our uranium.  Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember, with the stupid plastic button that made us all look like a bunch of jerks?  Here, take a look.  He looked at her like, what the hell is she doing with that cheap plastic button?  Hillary Clinton — that was a reset.  Remember?  It said “reset.”

Now, if I do that, oh, I’m a bad guy.  If we could get along with Russia, that’s a positive thing.  We have a very talented man, Rex Tillerson, who is going to be meeting with them shortly.  And I told him, I said, I know politically it’s probably not good for me.  Hey, the greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles offshore right out of the water.  Everyone in this country is going to say, oh, it’s so great.  That’s not great.  That’s not great.  I would love to be able to get along with Russia.

Now, you’ve had a lot of Presidents that haven’t taken that tact.  Look where we are now.  Look where we are now.  So, if I can — now, I love to negotiate things.  I do it really well and all that stuff, but it’s possible I won’t be able to get along with Putin.  Maybe it is.  But I want to just tell you, the false reporting by the media, by you people — the false, horrible, fake reporting makes it much harder to make a deal with Russia.  And probably Putin said, you know — he’s sitting behind his desk and he’s saying, you know, I see what’s going on in the United States, I follow it closely; it’s got to be impossible for President Trump to ever get along with Russia because of all the pressure he’s got with this fake story.  Okay?  And that’s a shame.  Because if we could get along with Russia — and, by the way, China and Japan and everyone — if we could get along, it would be a positive thing, not a negative thing.

Q    Tax reform —

Q    Mr. President, since you —

THE PRESIDENT:  Tax reform is going to happen fairly quickly.  We’re doing Obamacare — we’re in final stages.  We should be submitting the initial plan in March, early March, I would say.  And we have to, as you know, statutorily and for reasons of budget, we have to go first.  It’s not like — frankly, the tax would be easier, in my opinion, but for statutory reasons and for budgetary reasons, we have to submit the health care sooner.  So we’ll be submitting health care sometime in early March, mid-March.  And after that, we’re going to come up — and we’re doing very well on tax reform.

Yes.

Q    Mr. President, you mentioned Russia.  Let’s talk about some serious issues that have come up in the last week that you have had to deal with as President of the United States.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.

Q    You mentioned the vessel, the spy vessel, off the coast of the United States.

THE PRESIDENT:  Not good.

Q    There was a ballistic missile test that many interpreted as a violation —

THE PRESIDENT:  Not good.

Q    — of the agreement between the two countries.  And a Russian plane buzzed a U.S. destroyer.

THE PRESIDENT:  Not good.

Q    I listened to you during the campaign —

THE PRESIDENT:  Excuse me, excuse me, when did it happen?  It happened when — if you were Putin right now, you would say, hey, we’re back to the old games with the United States.  There’s no way Trump can ever do a deal with us because the — you have to understand, if I was just brutal on Russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, oh, isn’t that wonderful.  But I know you well enough.  Then you would say, oh, he was too tough, he shouldn’t have done that.  Look, of all —

Q    I’m just trying to find out your orientation to those —

THE PRESIDENT:  Wait a minute.  Wait, wait.  Excuse me just one second.

Q    I’m just trying to find out what you’re doing to do about them, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT:  All of those things that you mentioned are very recent, because probably Putin assumes that he’s not going to be able to make a deal with me because it’s politically not popular for me to make a deal.  So Hillary Clinton tries to reset, it failed.  They all tried.  But I’m different than those people.

Go ahead.

Q    How are you interpreting those moves?  And what do you intend to do about them?

THE PRESIDENT:  Just the way I said it.

Q    Have you given Rex Tillerson any advice or counsel on how to deal?

THE PRESIDENT:  I have.  I have.  And I’m so beautifully represented.  I’m so honored that the Senate approved him.  He’s going to be fantastic.

Yes, I think that I’ve already —

Q    Is Putin testing you, do you believe, sir?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I don’t think so.  I think Putin probably assumes that he can’t make a deal with me anymore because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to make a deal.  I can’t believe I’m saying I’m a politician, but I guess that’s what I am now.  Because, look, it would be much easier for me to be tough on Russia, but then we’re not going to make a deal.

Now, I don’t know that we’re going to make a deal.  I don’t know.  We might, we might not.  But it would be much easier for me to be so tough — the tougher I am on Russia, the better.  But you know what, I want to do the right thing for the American people.  And to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world.

If Russia and the United States actually got together and got along — and don’t forget, we’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they.  There’s no upside.  We’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they.  I’ve been briefed.  And I can tell you, one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it:  Nuclear holocaust would be like no other.  They’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are we.

If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

Q    So when you say they’re not good, do you mean that they are —

THE PRESIDENT:  Who did I say is not good?

Q    No, when I read off the three things that have recently happened and each one of them you said they’re not good.

THE PRESIDENT:  No, it’s not good, but they happened.

Q    But do they damage the relationship?  Do they undermine this country’s ability to work with Russia?

THE PRESIDENT:  They all happened recently, and I understand what they’re doing, because they’re doing the same thing.  Now, again, maybe I’m not going to be able to do a deal with Russia, but at least I will have tried.  And if I don’t, does anybody really think that Hillary Clinton would be tougher on Russia than Donald Trump?  Does anybody in this room really believe that?  Okay.

But I tell you one thing:  She tried to make a deal.  She had the reset.  She gave all the valuable uranium away.  She did other things.  You know, they say I’m close to Russia.  Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States.  She’s close to Russia.  I gave — you know what I gave to Russia?  You know what I gave?  Nothing.

Q    Can we conclude there will be no response to these particular provocations?

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not going to tell you anything about what response I do.  I don’t talk about military response.  I don’t say I’m going into Mosul in four months.  “We are going to attack Mosul in four months.”  Then three months later:  “We are going to attack Mosul in one month.”  “Next week, we are going to attack Mosul.”  In the meantime, Mosul is very, very difficult.  Do you know why?  Because I don’t talk about military, and I don’t talk about certain other things.  You’re going to be surprised to hear that.  And, by the way, my whole campaign, I’d say that.  So I don’t have to tell you —

Q    There will be a response?

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t want to be one of these guys that say, “Yes, here’s what we’re going to do.”  I don’t have to do that.

Q    There will be a — in other words, there will be a response, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea.  Wait a minute.  I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea.  And I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do with Iran.  You know why?  Because they shouldn’t know.  And eventually you guys are going to get tired of asking that question.  So when you ask me, what am I going to do with the ship — the Russian ship, as an example — I’m not going to tell you.  But hopefully, I won’t have to do anything.  But I’m not going to tell you.  Okay.

Q    Thanks.

Q    Can I just ask you — thank you very much, Mr. President — the Trump —

THE PRESIDENT:  Where are you from?

Q    BBC.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  Here’s another beauty.

Q    That’s a good line.  Impartial, free, and fair.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, sure.

Q    Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT:  Just like CNN, right?

Q    Mr. President, on the travel ban — we could banter back and forth.  On the travel ban, would you accept that that was a good example of the smooth running of government, that fine-tuned —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, I do.  I do.   And let me tell you about the travel —

Q    Were there any mistakes in that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Wait, wait, wait.  I know who you are.  Just wait.  Let me tell you about the travel ban.  We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban, but we had a bad court.  We got a bad decision.  We had a court that’s been overturned — again, maybe wrong, but I think it’s 80 percent of the time.  A lot.  We had a bad decision.  We’re going to keep going with that decision.  We’re going to put in a new executive order next week sometime.  But we had a bad decision.  That’s the only thing that was wrong with the travel ban.

You had Delta with a massive problem with their computer system at the airports.  You had some people that were put out there, brought by very nice buses, and they were put out at various locations.  Despite that, the only problem that we had is we had a bad court.  We had a court that gave us what I consider to be, with great respect, a very bad decision.  Very bad for the safety and security of our country.  The rollout was perfect.

Now, what I wanted to do was do the exact same executive order but said one thing — and I said this to my people:  Give them a one-month period of time.  But General Kelly, now Secretary Kelly, said, if you do that, all these people will come in, in the month — the bad ones.  You do agree, there are bad people out there, right?  They’re not everybody that’s like you.  You have some bad people out there.

So Kelly said, you can’t do that.  And he was right.  As soon as he said it, I said, wow, never thought of it.  I said, how about one week?  He said, no good.  You got to do it immediately, because if you do it immediately, they don’t have time to come in.  Now, nobody ever reports that, but that’s why we did it quickly.

Now, if would have done it a month, everything would have been perfect.  The problems is we would have wasted a lot of time, and maybe a lot of lives, because a lot of bad people would have come into our country.

Now, in the meantime, we’ve vetting very, very strongly.  Very, very strongly.  But we need help, and we need help by getting that executive order passed.

Q    Just a brief follow-up.  And if it’s so urgent, why not introduce —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  I just was hoping that we could get a yes- or-no answer on one of these questions involving Russia.  Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I told you, General Flynn obviously was dealing.  So that’s one person.  But he was dealing — as he should have been —

Q    During the election?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, nobody that I know of.

Q    So you’re not aware of any contacts during the course of the election?

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, look, how many times do I have to answer this question?

Q    Can you just say yes or no on it?

THE PRESIDENT:  Russia is a ruse.  Yeah, I know you have to get up and ask a question, so important.  Russia is a ruse.  I have nothing to do with Russia, haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years.  Don’t speak to people from Russia.  Not that I wouldn’t, I just have nobody to speak to.  I spoke to Putin twice.  He called me on the election — I told you this — and he called me on the inauguration, and a few days ago.  We had a very good talk, especially the second one — lasted for a pretty long period of time.  I’m sure you probably get it because it was classified, so I’m sure everybody in this room perhaps has it.  But we had a very, very good talk.  I have nothing to do with Russia.  To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.

Now, Manafort has totally denied it.  He denied it.  Now, people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while, but not for Russia.  I think he represented Ukraine or people having to do with Ukraine, or people that — whoever.  But people knew that.  Everybody knew that.

Q    But in his capacity as your campaign manager, was he in touch with Russian officials during the election?

THE PRESIDENT:  I have — you know what, he said no.  I can only tell you what he — now, he was replaced long before the election.  You know that, right?  He was replaced long before the election.  When all of this stuff started coming out, it came out during the election.  But Paul Manafort, who’s a good man also, by the way — Paul Manafort was replaced long before the election took place.  He was only there for a short period of time.

How much longer should we stay here, folks?  Five more minutes, is that okay?  Five?

Q    Mr. President, on national security —

THE PRESIDENT:  Wait, let’s see, who’s — I want to find a friendly reporter.  Are you a friendly reporter?  Watch how friendly he is.  Wait, wait — watch how friendly he is.  Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    So, first of all, my name is (inaudible) from (inaudible) Magazine.  And (inaudible).  I haven’t seen anybody in my community accuse either yourself or any of the — anyone on your staff of being anti-Semitic.  We have an understanding of (inaudible).

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

Q    However, what we are concerned about, and what we haven’t really heard be addressed is an uptick in anti-Semitism and how the government is planning to take care of it.  There have been reports out that 48 bomb threats have been made against Jewish centers all across the country in the last couple of weeks.  There are people who are committing anti-Semitic acts or threatening to —

THE PRESIDENT:  You see, he said he was going to ask a very simple, easy question.  And it’s not.  It’s not.  Not a simple question, not a fair question.  Okay, sit down.  I understand the rest of your question.

So here’s the story, folks.  Number one, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life.  Number two, racism — the least racist person.  In fact, we did very well relative to other people running as a Republican.

Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Quiet, quiet, quiet.  See, he lied about — he was going to get up and ask a very straight, simple question.  So you know, welcome to the world of the media.  But let me just tell you something — that I hate the charge.  I find it repulsive.  I hate even the question because people that know me — and you heard the Prime Minister, you heard Netanyahu yesterday — did you hear him, Bibi?  He said, I’ve known Donald Trump for a long time, and then he said, forget it.

So you should take that, instead of having to get up and ask a very insulting question like that.

Yeah, go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  I’m Lisa from the PBS —

THE PRESIDENT:  See, it just shows you about the press, but that’s the way the press is.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Lisa Desjardins from the PBS Newshour.

THE PRESIDENT:  Good.

Q    On national security and immigration, can you give us more details on the executive order you planned for next week, even its broad outlines?  Will it be focused on specific countries?

THE PRESIDENT:  It’s a very fair question.

Q    And in addition, on the DACA program for immigration, what is your plan?  Do you plan to continue that program or to end it?

THE PRESIDENT:  We’re going to show great heart.  DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me, I will tell you.  To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects I have, because you have these incredible kids, in many cases — not in all cases.  In some of the cases they’re having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers too.  But you have some absolutely incredible kids — I would say mostly — they were brought here in such a way — it’s a very, very tough subject.

We are going to deal with DACA with heart.  I have to deal with a lot of politicians, don’t forget, and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is right.  And I appreciate your understanding on that.

But the DACA situation is a very, very — it’s a very difficult thing for me.  Because, you know, I love these kids.  I love kids.  I have kids and grandkids.  And I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do.  And you know, the law is rough.  I’m not talking about new laws.  I’m talking the existing law is very rough.  It’s very, very rough.

As far as the new order, the new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider to be a very bad decision, but we can tailor the order to that decision and get just about everything, in some ways more.  But we’re tailoring it now to the decision.  We have some of the best lawyers in the country working on it.  And the new executive order is being tailored to the decision we got down from the court.  Okay?

Q    Mr. President, Melania Trump announced the reopening of the White House Visitors Office.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

Q    And she does a lot of great work for the country as well.  Can you tell us a little bit about what First Lady Melania Trump does for the country?  And there is a unique level of interest in your administration, so by opening the White House Visitors Office, what does that mean to you?

THE PRESIDENT:  Now, that’s what I call a nice question.  That is very nice.  Who are you with?

Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Good.  I’m going to start watching.  Thank you very much.

Melania is terrific.  She was here last night.  We had dinner with Senator Rubio and his wife, who is, by the way, lovely.  And we had a really good discussion about Cuba because we have very similar views on Cuba.  And Cuba was very good to me in the Florida election as you know, the Cuban people, Americans.  And I think that Melania is going to be outstanding.  That’s right, she just opened up the Visitors Center — in other words, touring of the White House.

She, like others that she’s working with, feels very, very strongly about women’s issues, women’s difficulties, very, very strongly.  And she’s a very, very strong advocate.  I think she’s a great representative for this country.  And a funny thing happens because she gets so unfairly maligned.  The things they say — I’ve known her for a long time.  She was a very successful person.  She was a very successful model.  She did really well.  She would go home at night and didn’t even want to go out with people.  She was a very private person.  She was always the highest quality that you’ll ever find.  And the things they say — and I’ve known her for a long time — the things they say are so unfair.  And actually, she’s been apologized to, as you know, by various media because they said things that were lies.

I’d just tell you this:  I think she’s going to be a fantastic First Lady.  She’s going to be a tremendous representative of women and of the people.  And helping her and working with her will be Ivanka, who is a fabulous person and a fabulous, fabulous woman.  And they’re not doing this for money.  They’re not doing this for pay.  They’re doing this because they feel it, both of them.  And Melania goes back and forth, and after Barron finishes school — because it’s hard to take a child out of school with a few months left — she and Barron will be moving over to the White House.  Thank you.  That’s a very nice question.

Go ahead.

Q    Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  Oh, this is going to be a bad question but that’s okay.

Q    No, it’s not going to be a bad question.

THE PRESIDENT:  Good, because I enjoy watching you on television.

Q    Well, thank you so much.  Mr. President, I need to find out from you — you said something as it relates to inner cities.  That was one of your platforms during your campaign.

THE PRESIDENT:  Fix the inner cities, yes.

Q    Fixing the inner cities.  What will be that fix and your urban agenda, as well as your HBCU executive order that’s coming out this afternoon?  See, it wasn’t bad, was it?

THE PRESIDENT:  That was very professional and very good.

Q    I’m very professional.

THE PRESIDENT:  We’ll be announcing the order in a little while, and I’d rather let the order speak for itself.  But it will be something I think that will be very good for everybody concerned.  But we’ll talk to you about that after we do the announcement.

As far as the inner cities, as you know, I was very strong on the inner cities during the campaign.  I think it’s probably what got me a much higher percentage of the African American vote than a lot of people thought I was going to get.  We did much higher than people thought I was going to get and I was honored by that, including the Hispanic vote, which was also much higher.  And, by the way, if I might add, including the women’s vote, which was much higher than people thought I was going to get.

So we are going to be working very hard on the inner cities having to do with education, having to do with crime.  We’re going to try and fix as quickly as possible — you know it takes a long time.  It’s taken 100 years or more for some of these places to evolve, and they evolved many of them very badly.

But we’re going to be working very hard on health and health care; very, very hard on education.  And also, we’re going to working in a stringent way, and a very good way, on crime.  You go to some of these inner city places, and it’s so sad when you look at the crime.  You have people — and I’ve seen this, and I’ve sort of witnessed it.  In fact, in two cases, I have actually witnessed it.  They lock themselves into apartments, petrified to even leave, in the middle of the day.  They’re living in hell.  We can’t let that happen.  So we’re going to be very, very strong.

It’s a great question, and it’s a very difficult situation, because it’s been many, many years.  It’s been festering for many, many years.  But we have places in this country that we have to fix.  We have to help African American people that, for the most part are stuck there — Hispanic American people.  We have Hispanic American people that are in the inner cities, and they’re living in hell.

I mean, you look at the numbers in Chicago.  There are two Chicagos, as you know.  There’s one Chicago that’s incredible, luxurious and all, and safe.  There’s another Chicago that’s worse than almost any of the places in the Middle East that we talk about, and that you talk about every night on the newscasts.  So we’re going to do a lot of work on the inner cities.  I have great people lined up to help with the inner cities.

Q    Well, when you say — when you say the inner cities, are you going to include the CBC, Mr. President, in your conversations with your urban agenda, your inner city agenda, as well as your —

THE PRESIDENT:  Am I going include who?

Q    Are you going to include the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, as well as —

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I would.  I tell you what, do you want to set up the meeting?  Do you want to set up the meeting?

Q    No, no, no.

THE PRESIDENT:  Are they friends of yours?

Q    I’m just a reporter.

THE PRESIDENT:  No, go ahead, set up the meeting.

Q    I know some of them, but I’m sure they’re watching right now.

THE PRESIDENT:  Let’s go set up a meeting.  I would love to meet with the Black Caucus.  I think it’s great — the Congressional Black Caucus.  I think it’s great.  I actually thought I had a meeting with Congressman Cummings, and he was all excited, and then he said, oh, I can’t move, it might be bad for me politically, I can’t have that meeting.  I was all set to have the meeting.  You know, we called him and called him, and he was all set.  I spoke to him on the phone.  Very nice guy.

Q    I hear he wanted that meeting with you as well.

THE PRESIDENT:  He wanted it.  But we called, called, called, called — they can’t make a meeting with him.  Every day, I walked in, I said, I would like to meet with him.  Because I do want to solve the problem.  But he probably was told by Schumer or somebody like that — some other lightweight — he was probably told — he was probably told, don’t meet with Trump, it’s bad politics.  And that’s part of the problem of this country.

Okay, one more.  Go ahead.

Q    Yes, Mr. President, two questions —

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  One question.  Two, we can’t handle.  This room can’t handle two.  Go ahead, give me the better of your two.

Q    (Inaudible) it’s not about your personality or your beliefs.  We’re talking about (inaudible) around the country, some of it by supporters in your name.  What do you —

THE PRESIDENT:  And some of it — and can I be honest with you?  And this has to do with racism and horrible things that are put up.  Some of it written by our opponents.  You do know that.  Do you understand that?  You don’t think anybody would do a thing like that.  Some of the signs you’ll see are not put up by the people that love or like Donald Trump, they’re put up by the other side, and you think it’s like playing it straight.  No.  But you have some of those signs, and some of that anger is caused by the other side.  They’ll do signs and they’ll do drawings that are inappropriate.  It won’t be my people.  It will be the people on the other side to anger people like you.  Okay.

Go ahead.

Q    You are the President now.  What are you going to do about it?

THE PRESIDENT:  Who is that?  Where is that?  Oh, stand up.  You can —

Q    What are you going to do about the tensions that have been discussed?

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, I’m working on it.  No, I’m working on it very hard.

Q    Are you going to give a speech?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, look.  Hey, just so you understand, we had a totally divided country for eight years, and long before that, in all fairness to President Obama.  Long before President Obama, we have had a very divided.  I didn’t come along and divide this country.  This country was seriously divided before I got here.

We’re going to work on it very hard.  One of the questions that was asked — I thought it was a very good question — was about the inner cities.  I mean, that’s part of it.  But we’re going to work on education.  We’re going to work on lack — you know, we’re going to stop — we’re going to try and stop the crime.  We have great law enforcement officials.  We’re going to try and stop crime.  We’re not going to try and stop, we’re going to stop crime.

But it’s very important to me.  But this isn’t Donald Trump that divided a nation.  We went eight years with President Obama, and we went many years before President Obama.  We lived in a divided nation.  And I am going to try — I will do everything within my power to fix that.

I want to thank everybody very much.  It’s a great honor to be with you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
2:13 P.M. EST

Full Text Political Transcripts February 15, 2017: President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel Joint Press Conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel in Joint Press Conference

Source: WH, 2-15-17

[As prepared by White House stenographer in real time]

East Room

12:15 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  Today I have the honor of welcoming my friend, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to the White House.  With this visit, the United States again reaffirms our unbreakable bond with our cherished ally, Israel.  The partnership between our two countries built on our shared values has advanced the cause of human freedom, dignity and peace.  These are the building blocks of democracy.

The state of Israel is a symbol to the world of resilience in the face of oppression — I can think of no other state that’s gone through what they’ve gone — and of survival in the face of genocide.  We will never forget what the Jewish people have endured.

Your perseverance in the face of hostility, your open democracy in the face of violence, and your success in the face of tall odds is truly inspirational.  The security challenges faced by Israel are enormous, including the threat of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which I’ve talked a lot about.  One of the worst deals I’ve ever seen is the Iran deal.  My administration has already imposed new sanctions on Iran, and I will do more to prevent Iran from ever developing — I mean ever — a nuclear weapon.

Our security assistance to Israel is currently at an all-time high, ensuring that Israel has the ability to defend itself from threats of which there are unfortunately many.  Both of our countries will continue and grow.  We have a long history of cooperation in the fight against terrorism and the fight against those who do not value human life.  America and Israel are two nations that cherish the value of all human life.

This is one more reason why I reject unfair and one-sided actions against Israel at the United Nations — just treated Israel, in my opinion, very, very unfairly — or other international forums, as well as boycotts that target Israel.  Our administration is committed to working with Israel and our common allies in the region towards greater security and stability.  That includes working toward a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.  The United States will encourage a peace and, really, a great peace deal.  We’ll be working on it very, very diligently.  Very important to me also — something we want to do.  But it is the parties themselves who must directly negotiate such an agreement.  We’ll be beside them; we’ll be working with them.

As with any successful negotiation, both sides will have to make compromises.  You know that, right?  (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  Both sides.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I want the Israeli people to know that the United States stands with Israel in the struggle against terrorism.  As you know, Mr. Prime Minister, our two nations will always condemn terrorist acts.  Peace requires nations to uphold the dignity of human life and to be a voice for all of those who are endangered and forgotten.

Those are the ideals to which we all, and will always, aspire and commit.  This will be the first of many productive meetings.  And I, again, Mr. Prime Minister, thank you very much for being with us today.

Mr. Prime Minister, thank you.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  President Trump, thank you for the truly warm hospitality you and Melania have shown me, my wife Sara, our entire delegation.  I deeply value your friendship.  To me, to the state of Israel, it was so clearly evident in the words you just spoke — Israel has no better ally than the United States.  And I want to assure you, the United States has no better ally than Israel.

Our alliance has been remarkably strong, but under your leadership I’m confident it will get even stronger.  I look forward to working with you to dramatically upgrade our alliance in every field — in security, in technology, in cyber and trade, and so many others.  And I certainly welcome your forthright call to ensure that Israel is treated fairly in international forums, and that the slander and boycotts of Israel are resisted mightily by the power and moral position of the United States of America.

As you have said, our alliance is based on a deep bond of common values and common interests.  And, increasingly, those values and interests are under attack by one malevolent force:  radical Islamic terror.  Mr. President, you’ve shown great clarity and courage in confronting this challenge head-on.  You call for confronting Iran’s terrorist regime, preventing Iran from realizing this terrible deal into a nuclear arsenal.  And you have said that the United States is committed to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  You call for the defeat of ISIS.  Under your leadership, I believe we can reverse the rising tide of radical Islam.  And in this great task, as in so many others, Israel stands with you and I stand with you.

Mr. President, in rolling back militant Islam, we can seize an historic opportunity — because, for the first time in my lifetime, and for the first time in the life of my country, Arab countries in the region do not see Israel as an enemy, but, increasingly, as an ally.  And I believe that under your leadership, this change in our region creates an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen security and advance peace.

Let us seize this moment together.  Let us bolster security.  Let us seek new avenues of peace.  And let us bring the remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States to even greater heights.

Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you.  Again, thank you.

We’ll take a couple of questions.  David Brody, Christian Broadcasting.  David.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister.  Both of you have criticized the Iran nuclear deal, and at times even called for its repeal.  I’m wondering if you’re concerned at all as it relates to not just the National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, who is recently no longer here, but also some of those events that have been going on with communication in Russia — if that is going to hamper this deal at all, and whether or not it would keep Iran from becoming a nuclear state.

And secondly, on the settlement issue, are you both on the same page?  How do you exactly term that as it relates to the settlement issue?  Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Michael Flynn, General Flynn is a wonderful man.  I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly by the media — as I call it, the fake media, in many cases.  And I think it’s really a sad thing that he was treated so badly.  I think, in addition to that, from intelligence — papers are being leaked, things are being leaked.  It’s criminal actions, criminal act, and it’s been going on for a long time — before me.  But now it’s really going on, and people are trying to cover up for a terrible loss that the Democrats had under Hillary Clinton.

I think it’s very, very unfair what’s happened to General Flynn, the way he was treated, and the documents and papers that were illegally — I stress that — illegally leaked.  Very, very unfair.

As far as settlements, I’d like to see you hold back on settlements for a little bit.  We’ll work something out.  But I would like to see a deal be made.  I think a deal will be made.  I know that every President would like to.  Most of them have not started until late because they never thought it was possible.  And it wasn’t possible because they didn’t do it.

But Bibi and I have known each other a long time — a smart man, great negotiator.  And I think we’re going to make a deal.  It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand.  That’s a possibility.  So let’s see what we do.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  Let’s try it.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Doesn’t sound too optimistic, but — (laughter) — he’s a good negotiator.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  That’s the “art of the deal.”  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I also want to thank — I also want to thank — Sara, could you please stand up?  You’re so lovely and you’ve been so nice to Melania.  I appreciate it very much.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

Your turn.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  Yes, please.  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you very much.  Mr. President, in your vision for the new Middle East peace, are you ready to give up the notion of two-state solution that was adopted by previous administration?  And will you be willing to hear different ideas from the Prime Minister, as some of his partners are asking him to do, for example, annexation of parts of the West Bank and unrestricted settlement constructions?  And one more question:  Are you going to fulfill your promise to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem?  And if so, when?

And, Mr. Prime Minister, did you come here tonight to tell the President that you’re backing off the two-state solution?

Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  So I’m looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like.  (Laughter.)  I’m very happy with the one that both parties like.  I can live with either one.

I thought for a while the two-state looked like it may be the easier of the two.  But honestly, if Bibi and if the Palestinians — if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best.

As far as the embassy moving to Jerusalem, I’d love to see that happen.  We’re looking at it very, very strongly.  We’re looking at it with great care — great care, believe me.  And we’ll see what happens.  Okay?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  Thank you.  I read yesterday that an American official said that if you ask five people what two states would look like, you’d get eight different answers.  Mr. President, if you ask five Israelis, you’d get 12 different answers.  (Laughter.)

But rather than deal with labels, I want to deal with substance.  It’s something I’ve hoped to do for years in a world that’s absolutely fixated on labels and not on substance.  So here’s the substance:  There are two prerequisites for peace that I laid out two years — several years ago, and they haven’t changed.

First, the Palestinians must recognize the Jewish state.  They have to stop calling for Israel’s destruction.  They have to stop educating their people for Israel’s destruction.

Second, in any peace agreement, Israel must retain the overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River.  Because if we don’t, we know what will happen — because otherwise we’ll get another radical Islamic terrorist state in the Palestinian areas exploding the peace, exploding the Middle East.

Now, unfortunately, the Palestinians vehemently reject both prerequisites for peace.  First, they continue to call for Israel’s destruction — inside their schools, inside their mosques, inside the textbooks.  You have to read it to believe it.

They even deny, Mr. President, our historical connection to our homeland.  And I suppose you have to ask yourself:  Why do – – why are Jews called Jews?  Well, the Chinese are called Chinese because they come from China.  The Japanese are called Japanese because they come from Japan.  Well, Jews are called Jews because they come from Judea.  This is our ancestral homeland.  Jews are not foreign colonialists in Judea.

So, unfortunately, the Palestinians not only deny the past, they also poison the present.  They name public squares in honor of mass murderers who murdered Israelis, and I have to say also murdered Americans.  They fund — they pay monthly salaries to the families of murderers, like the family of the terrorist who killed Taylor Force, a wonderful young American, a West Point graduate, who was stabbed to death while visiting Israel.

So this is the source of the conflict — the persistent Palestinian refusal to recognize the Jewish state in any boundary; this persistent rejection.  That’s the reason we don’t have peace.  Now, that has to change.  I want it to change.  Not only have I not abandoned these two prerequisites of peace; they’ve become even more important because of the rising tide of fanaticism that has swept the Middle East and has also, unfortunately, infected Palestinian society.

So I want this to change.  I want those two prerequisites of peace — substance, not labels — I want them reinstated.  But if anyone believes that I, as Prime Minister of Israel, responsible for the security of my country, would blindly walk into a Palestinian terrorist state that seeks the destruction of my country, they’re gravely mistaken.

The two prerequisites of peace — recognition of the Jewish state, and Israel’s security needs west of the Jordan — they remain pertinent.  We have to look for new ways, new ideas on how to reinstate them and how to move peace forward.  And I believe that the great opportunity for peace comes from a regional approach from involving our newfound Arab partners in the pursuit of a broader peace and peace with the Palestinians.

And I greatly look forward to discussing this in detail with you, Mr. President, because I think that if we work together, we have a shot.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And we have been discussing that, and it is something that is very different, hasn’t been discussed before.  And it’s actually a much bigger deal, a much more important deal, in a sense.  It would take in many, many countries and it would cover a very large territory.  So I didn’t know you were going to be mentioning that, but that’s — now that you did, I think it’s a terrific thing and I think we have some pretty good cooperation from people that in the past would never, ever have even thought about doing this.  So we’ll see how that works out.

Katie from Townhall.  Where’s Katie?  Right there.  Katie.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You said in your earlier remarks that both sides will have to make compromises when it comes to a peace deal.  You’ve mentioned a halt on settlements.  Can you lay out a few more specific compromises that you have in mind, both for the Israelis and for the Palestinians?

And, Mr. Prime Minister, what expectations do you have from the new administration about how to either amend the Iran nuclear agreement or how to dismantle it altogether, and how to overall work with the new administration to combat Iran’s increased aggression, not only in the last couple of months but the past couple of years as well?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It’s actually an interesting question.  I think that the Israelis are going to have to show some flexibility, which is hard, it’s hard to do.  They’re going to have to show the fact that they really want to make a deal.  I think our new concept that we’ve been discussing actually for a while is something that allows them to show more flexibility than they have in the past because you have a lot bigger canvas to play with.  And I think they’ll do that.

I think they very much would like to make a deal or I wouldn’t be happy and I wouldn’t be here and I wouldn’t be as optimistic as I am.  I really think they — I can tell you from the standpoint of Bibi and from the standpoint of Israel, I really believe they want to make a deal and they’d like to see the big deal.

I think the Palestinians have to get rid of some of that hate that they’re taught from a very young age.  They’re taught tremendous hate.  I’ve seen what they’re taught.  And you can talk about flexibility there too, but it starts at a very young age and it starts in the school room.  And they have to acknowledge Israel — they’re going to have to do that.  There’s no way a deal can be made if they’re not ready to acknowledge a very, very great and important country.  And I think they’re going to be willing to do that also.  But now I also believe we’re going to have, Katie, other players at a very high level, and I think it might make it easier on both the Palestinians and Israel to get something done.

Okay?  Thank you.  Very interesting question.  Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  You asked about Iran.  One thing is preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons — something that President Trump and I think are deeply committed to do.  And we are obviously going to discuss that.

I think, beyond that, President Trump has led a very important effort in the past few weeks, just coming into the presidency.  He pointed out there are violations, Iranian violations on ballistic missile tests.  By the way, these ballistic missiles are inscribed in Hebrew, “Israel must be destroyed.”  The Palestinian — rather the Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said, well, our ballistic missiles are not intended against any country.  No.  They write on the missile in Hebrew, “Israel must be destroyed.”

So challenging Iran on its violations of ballistic missiles, imposing sanctions on Hezbollah, preventing them, making them pay for the terrorism that they foment throughout the Middle East and beyond, well beyond — I think that’s a change that is clearly evident since President Trump took office.  I welcome that.  I think it’s — let me say this very openly:  I think it’s long overdue, and I think that if we work together — and not just the United States and Israel, but so many others in the region who see eye to eye on the great magnitude and danger of the Iranian threat, then I think we can roll back Iran’s aggression and danger.  And that’s something that is important for Israel, the Arab states, but I think it’s vitally important for America.  These guys are developing ICBMs.  They’re developing — they want to get to a nuclear arsenal, not a bomb, a hundred bombs.  And they want to have the ability to launch them everywhere on Earth, and including, and especially, eventually, the United States.

So this is something that is important for all of us.  I welcome the change, and I intend to work with President Trump very closely so that we can thwart this danger.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Great.  Do you have somebody?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  Moav (ph)?

Q    Mr. President, since your election campaign and even after your victory, we’ve seen a sharp rise in anti-Semitic incidents across the United States.  And I wonder what you say to those among the Jewish community in the States, and in Israel, and maybe around the world who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.

And, Mr. Prime Minister, do you agree to what the President just said about the need for Israel to restrain or to stop settlement activity in the West Bank?  And a quick follow-up on my friend’s questions — simple question:  Do you back off from your vision to the end of the conflict of two-state solution as you laid out in Bar-Ilan speech, or you still support it?  Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I just want to say that we are very honored by the victory that we had — 306 Electoral College votes.  We were not supposed to crack 220.  You know that, right?  There was no way to 221, but then they said there’s no way to 270.  And there’s tremendous enthusiasm out there.

I will say that we are going to have peace in this country.  We are going to stop crime in this country.  We are going to do everything within our power to stop long-simmering racism and every other thing that’s going on, because lot of bad things have been taking place over a long period of time.

I think one of the reasons I won the election is we have a very, very divided nation.  Very divided.  And, hopefully, I’ll be able to do something about that.  And, you know, it was something that was very important to me.

As far as people — Jewish people — so many friends, a daughter who happens to be here right now, a son-in-law, and three beautiful grandchildren.  I think that you’re going to see a lot different United States of America over the next three, four, or eight years.  I think a lot of good things are happening, and you’re going to see a lot of love.  You’re going to see a lot of love.  Okay?  Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  I believe that the issue of the settlements is not the core of the conflict, nor does it really drive the conflict.  I think it’s an issue, it has to be resolved in the context of peace negotiations.  And I think we also are going to speak about it, President Trump and I, so we can arrive at an understanding so we don’t keep on bumping into each other all the time on this issue.  And we’re going to discuss this.

On the question you said, you just came back with your question to the problem that I said.  It’s the label.  What does Abu Mazen mean by two states, okay?  What does he mean?  A state that doesn’t recognize the Jewish state?  A state that basically is open for attack against Israel?  What are we talking about?  Are we talking about Costa Rica, or are we talking about another Iran?

So obviously it means different things.  I told you what are the conditions that I believe are necessary for an agreement:  It’s the recognition of the Jewish state and it’s Israel’s — Israel’s — security control of the entire area.  Otherwise we’re just fantasizing.  Otherwise we’ll get another failed state, another terrorist Islamist dictatorship that will not work for peace but work to destroy us but also destroy any hope — any hope — for a peaceful future for our people.

So I’ve been very clear about those conditions, and they haven’t changed.  I haven’t changed.  If you read what I said eight years ago, it’s exactly that.  And I repeated that again, and again, and again.  If you want to deal with labels, deal with labels.  I’ll deal with substance.

And finally, if I can respond to something that I know from personal experience.  I’ve known President Trump for many years, and to allude to him, or to his people — his team, some of whom I’ve known for many years, too.  Can I reveal, Jared, how long we’ve known you?  (Laughter.)  Well, he was never small.  He was always big.  He was always tall.

But I’ve known the President and I’ve known his family and his team for a long time, and there is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish state than President Donald Trump.  I think we should put that to rest.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you very much.  Very nice.  I appreciate that very much.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  Thank you.

END
12:42 P.M. EST

Full Text Political Transcripts February 13, 2017: President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada Joint Press Conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada in Joint Press Conference

Source: WH, 2-13-17

East Room

2:16 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Prime Minister Trudeau, on behalf of all Americans, I thank you for being with us today.  It is my honor to host such a great friend, neighbor, and ally at the White House, a very special place.  This year, Canada celebrates the 150th year of Confederation.  For Americans, this is one of the many milestones in our friendship, and we look forward — very much forward, I must say — to many more to come.

Our two nations share much more than a border.  We share the same values.  We share the love, and a truly great love, of freedom.  And we share a collective defense.  American and Canadian troops have gone to battle together, fought wars together, and forged the special bonds that come when two nations have shed their blood together — which we have.

In these dangerous times, it is more important than ever that we continue to strengthen our vital alliance.  The United States is deeply grateful for Canada’s contribution to the counter-ISIS effort.  Thank you.  And we continue to work in common, and in common cause, against terrorism, and work in common cooperation toward reciprocal trade and shared growth.

We understand that both of our countries are stronger when we join forces in matters of international commerce.  Having more jobs and trade right here in North America is better for both the United States and is also much better for Canada.  We should coordinate closely — and we will coordinate closely — to protect jobs in our hemisphere and keep wealth on our continent, and to keep everyone safe.

Prime Minister, I pledge to work with you in pursuit of our many shared interests.  This includes a stronger trading relationship between the United States and Canada.  It includes safe, efficient, and responsible cross-border travel and migration.  And it includes close partnership on domestic and international security.

America is deeply fortunate to have a neighbor like Canada.  We have before us the opportunity to build even more bridges, and bridges of cooperation and bridges of commerce.  Both of us are committed to bringing greater prosperity and opportunity to our people.

We just had a very productive meeting with women business leaders from the United States and Canada, where we discussed how to secure everything that we know the full power of women can do better than anybody else.  We know that.  I just want to say, Mr. Prime Minister, that I’m focused and you’re focused on the important role women play in our economies.  We must work to address the barriers faced by women and women entrepreneurs, including access to capital, access to markets, and, very importantly, access to networks.

In our discussion today we will focus on improving the ways our government and our governments together can benefit citizens of both the United States and Canada, and, in so doing, advance the greater peace and stability of the world.

Mr. Prime Minister, I look forward to working closely with you to build upon our very historic friendship.  There are incredible possibilities for us to pursue, Canada and the United States together.

Again, thank you for joining us, and I know our discussions will be very, very productive for the future of both countries.

Mr. Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good afternoon, everyone.  Thank you very much for joining us.

I’d first like to start by extending my sincere thanks to President Trump for inviting me down to Washington.  Any day I get to visit our southern neighbors is a good day in my book, particularly when it’s so nice and warm compared to what it is back home.  We are suffering under a significant winter storm that’s hitting our Atlantic provinces particularly harsh, so I just want to send everyone back at home my thoughts as they shovel out, and impress on everyone to stay safe.

(As interpreted from French.)  The President and myself have had a very productive first meeting today.  We had the opportunity to get to know one another better, and, more importantly, we had the opportunity to talk about the unique relationship between Canada and the United States.

(In English.)  Ends on both sides of the 49th parallel have understood that the bond between our nations is a special one.  No other neighbors in the entire world are as fundamentally linked as we are.  We’ve fought in conflict zones together, negotiated environmental treaties together, including 1991’s historic Air Quality Agreement.  And we’ve entered into groundbreaking economic partnerships that have created good jobs for both of our peoples.

Canadians and Americans alike share a common history as well as people-to-people ties that make us completely and totally integrated.  Our workers are connected by trade, transportation and cross-border commerce.  Our communities rely on each other for security, stability and economic prosperity.  Our families have long lived together and worked together.  We know that, more often than not, our victories are shared.  And just as we celebrate together, so too do we suffer loss and heartbreak together.

Through it all, the foundational pillar upon which our relationship is built is one of mutual respect.  And that’s a good thing, because as we know, relationships between neighbors are pretty complex and we won’t always agree on everything.  But because of our deep, abiding respect for one another, we’re able to successfully navigate those complexities and still remain the closest of allies and friends.  Make no mistake — at the end of the day, Canada and the U.S. will always remain each other’s most essential partner.

And today’s conversations have served to reinforce how important that is for both Canadians and Americans.  As we know, 35 U.S. states list Canada as their largest export market, and our economies benefit from the over $2 billion in two-way trade that takes place every single day.  Millions of good, middle-class jobs on both sides of the border depend on this crucial partnership.  Maintaining strong economic ties is vital to our mutual success, and we’re going to continue to work closely together over the coming years so that Canadian and American families can get ahead.

(As interpreted from French.)  As we know, 35 U.S. states list Canada as their largest export market and our economies benefit from the over $2 billion in two-way trade that takes place every single day.  Millions of good, middle-class jobs on both sides of the border depend on this crucial partnership.  Maintaining strong economic ties is vital to our mutual success, and we’re going to continue to work closely together over the coming years so that Canadian and American families can get ahead.

(In English.)  I’d like to highlight just a few of the specifics that President Trump and I discussed today.  At the end of the day, the President and I share a common goal.  We both want to make sure that hardworking folks can go to work at a good job, put food on the table for their families, and save up to take a vacation every once in a while.  That’s what we’re trying to do here.

Today, we reiterated that our nations are committed to collaborating on energy infrastructure projects that will create jobs while respecting the environment.  And, as we know, investing in infrastructure is a great way to create the kind of economic growth that our countries so desperately need.

In that same vein, we know that ensuring equal opportunities for women in the workforce is essential for growing the economy and maintaining American and Canadian competitiveness on the world stage.  As such, the President and I have agreed to the creation of the Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders.  This initiative is more than just about dollars and cents.  This is about ensuring that women have access to the same opportunities as men, and prioritizing the support and empowerment of women who are senior business leaders and entrepreneurs.  In doing so, we’ll grow the Canadian and American economies, and help our businesses prosper.

(As interpreted from French.)  Finally, President Trump and myself have agreed to work together to fight against the traffic of opioids across our border.  The rise of illegal use of opioids in our society is nothing less than a tragedy.  We will do everything we can to ensure the safety of Canadians and Americans.

Ladies and gentlemen, President Trump:  I know that if our countries continue to work together, our people will greatly benefit from this cooperation.

(In English.)  History has demonstrated time and again that in order to tackle our most pressing issues, both foreign and domestic, we must work with our closest allies, learn from each other, and stand in solidarity as a united voice.

With a level of economic and social integration that is unmatched on the world stage, Canada and the United States will forever be a model example of how to be good neighbors.  Winston Churchill once said, “That long Canadian frontier from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, guarded only by neighborly respect and honorable obligations, is an example to every country, and a pattern for the future of the world.”  That, my friends, is the very essence of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

I look forward to working with President Trump over the coming years to nurture and build upon this historic partnership.  Once again, it’s a tremendous pleasure to be here in Washington.  Merci beaucoup.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Okay, we’ll take a couple of questions.  Scott Thuman.  Scott.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You just spoke about the desire to build bridges, although there are some notable and philosophical differences between yourself and Prime Minister Trudeau.  I’m curious, as you move forward on issues from trade to terrorism, how do you see this relationship playing out?  And are there any specific areas with which during your conversations today you each decided to perhaps alter or amend your stances already on those sensitive issues like terrorism and immigration?

And, Prime Minister Trudeau, while only in its infancy so far, how do you see this relationship compared to that under the Obama administration?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, we just began discussions.  We are going to have a great relationship with Canada, maybe as good or better, hopefully, than ever before.  We have some wonderful ideas on immigration.  We have some, I think, very strong, very tough ideas on the tremendous problem that we have with terrorism.  And I think when we put them all together, which will be very, very quickly — we have a group of very talented people — we will see some very, very obvious results.  We’re also doing some cross-border things that will make it a lot easier for trade and a lot better and a lot faster for trade.

We have — through technology, we have some really great ideas, and they’ll be implemented fairly quickly.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  One of the things we spoke about was the fact that security and immigration need to work very well together.  And certainly Canada has emphasized security as we look towards improving our immigration system and remaining true to the values that we have.  And we had a very strong and fruitful discussion on exactly that.

There’s plenty that we can draw on each other from in terms of how we move forward with a very similar goal, which is to create free, open societies that keep our citizens safe.  And that’s certainly something that we’re very much in agreement on.

Tonda MacCharles.

Q    Good afternoon, Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister.  And, Mr. Prime Minister, could you answer in English and French for us, please?

A little bit of a follow-on on my American colleague’s question.  President Trump, you seem to suggest that Syrian refugees are a Trojan horse for potential terrorism, while the Prime Minister hugs refugees and welcomes them with open arms.  So I’d like to know, are you confident the northern border is secure?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  You can never be totally confident.  But through the incredible efforts — already I see it happening — of formerly General Kelly, now Secretary Kelly, we have really done a great job.  We’re actually taking people that are criminals — very, very hardened criminals in some cases, with a tremendous track record of abuse and problems — and we’re getting them out.  And that’s what I said I would do.  I’m just doing what I said I would do when we won by a very, very large Electoral College vote.

And I knew that was going to happen.  I knew this is what people were wanting.  And that wasn’t the only reason, that wasn’t my only thing that we did so well on.  But that was something was very important.  And I said we will get the criminals out, the drug lords, the gang members.  We’re getting them out.

General Kelly, who is sitting right here, is doing a fantastic job.  And I said at the beginning we are going to get the bad ones — the really bad ones, we’re getting them out.  And that’s exactly what we’re doing.

I think that in the end everyone is going to be extremely happy.  And I will tell you right now, a lot of people are very, very happy right now.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  Canada has always understood that keeping Canadians safe is one of the fundamental responsibilities of any government.  And that’s certainly something that we’re very much focused on.

At the same time, we continue to pursue our policies of openness towards immigration, refugees, without compromising security.  And part of the reason we have been successful in doing that over the past year — welcoming close to 40,000 Syrian refugees — is because we have been coordinating with our allies, the United States and around the world, to demonstrate that security comes very seriously to us.  And that’s something that we continue to deal with.

(As interpreted from French.)  It is clear that if you want to have a healthy and secure society or safe society, you have to make sure that you maintain — that you focus on security.  And we have welcomed refugees from Syria.  We have been very successful, but we have always taken our responsibility toward security very seriously.  And our allies, including the United States, understand this focus very well.  And they have done so since the very beginning.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:   Caitlin Collins (ph), please.

Q    Thank you.  President Trump, now that you’ve been in office and received intelligence briefings for nearly one month, what do you see as the most important national security matters facing us?

And, Prime Minister Trudeau, you’ve made very clear that Canada has an open-door policy for Syrian refugees.  Do you believe that President Trump’s moratorium on immigration has merit on national security grounds?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Okay.  Thank you.  Many, many problems.  When I was campaigning, I said it’s not a good situation.  Now that I see it — including with our intelligence briefings — we have problems that a lot of people have no idea how bad they are, how serious they are, not only internationally, but when you come right here.

Obviously, North Korea is a big, big problem, and we will deal with that very strongly.  We have problems all over the Middle East.  We have problems just about every corner of the globe, no matter where you look.  I had a great meeting this weekend with Prime Minister Abe of Japan and got to know each other very, very well — extended weekend, really.  We were with each other for long periods of time, and our staffs and representatives.

But on the home front, we have to create borders.  We have to let people that can love our country in, and I want to do that.  We want to have a big, beautiful, open door, and we want people to come in and come in our country.  But we cannot let the wrong people in, and I will not allow that to happen during this administration.  And people — citizens of our country want that, and that’s their attitude, too.

I will tell you, we are getting such praise for our stance, and it’s a stance of common sense — maybe a certain toughness, but it’s really more than toughness, it’s a stance of common sense — and we are going to pursue it vigorously.  And we don’t want to have our country have the kinds of problems that you’re witnessing taking place not only here but all over the world.  We won’t stand for it.  We won’t put up with it.  We’re just not going to let it happen.  We’re going to give ourselves every bit of chance so that things go well for the United States.  And they will go well.  Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  Canada and the United States have been neighbors a long time, and Canadians and Americans have stood together, worked together at home and around the world.  We’ve fought and died together in battlefields in World War I and World War II, in Korea, in Afghanistan.  But there have been times where we have differed in our approaches, and that’s always been done firmly and respectfully.

The last thing Canadians expect is for me to come down and lecture another country on how they choose to govern themselves.  My role and our responsibility is to continue to govern in such a way that reflects Canadians’ approach and be a positive example in the world.

Richard Latendresse.

Q    Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.  I’ll ask my question in French first and then, for you, I’ll — again in English.

(As interpreted from French.)  Mr. Prime Minister, if I heard you correctly, you said that Canadian businesses, Canadian workers are concerned for their businesses and for their work and jobs concerning the renegotiation of NAFTA.  So what guarantees did you get from this government that we will keep our jobs and our businesses in the renegotiation of NAFTA?

(In English.)  Mr. President, again, during the last three months, you have denounced NAFTA.  You have talked over and over about the Mexican portion of the agreement, very little about the Canadian one.  My question is in two short part is, is Canada a fair trader?  And when you talk about changes to NAFTA concerning Canada, are you talking about big changes or small changes?  Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  (As interpreted.)  First of all, Richard, thank you for your question.  It is a real concern for many Canadians because we know that our economy is very dependent on our bonds, our relationship with the United States.  Goods and services do cross the border each way every single day, and this means a lot of millions of jobs for Canadians, and good jobs for Canadians.  So we are always focusing on these jobs, but there are also good jobs, millions of jobs, in the United States that depend on those relationships between our two countries.

So when we sit down as we did today, and as our teams will be doing in the weeks and months to come, we will be talking about how we can continue to create good jobs for our citizens on both sides of the border.  And during this exercise, we continue to understand that we have to allow this free flow of goods and services, and we have to be aware of the integration of our economies, which is extremely positive for both our countries.  And this is the focus that we will have in the coming weeks and months to come.

(In English.)  Canadians are rightly aware of the fact that much of our economy depends on good working relationships with the United States, a good integration with the American economy.  And the fact is, millions of good jobs on both sides of the border depend on the smooth and easy flow of goods and services and people back and forth across our border.

And both President Trump and I got elected on commitments to support the middle class, to work hard for people who need a real shot at success.  And we know that by working together, by ensuring the continued effective integration of our two economies, we are going to be creating greater opportunities for middle-class Canadians and Americans now and well into the future.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I agree with that 100 percent.  We have a very outstanding trade relationship with Canada.  We’ll be tweaking it.  We’ll be doing certain things that are going to benefit both of our countries.  It’s a much less severe situation than what’s taking place on the southern border.  On the southern border, for many, many years, the transaction was not fair to the United States.  It was an extremely unfair transaction.  We’re going to work with Mexico, we’re going to make it a fair deal for both parties.  I think that we’re going to get along very well with Mexico; they understand and we understand.

You probably have noticed that Ford is making billions of dollars of new investments in this country.  You saw Intel the other day announce that because of what I’ve been doing and what I’m doing in terms of regulation — lowering taxes, et cetera — they’re coming in with billions and billions of dollars of investment, and thousands of thousands of jobs.  General Motors, likewise, is expanding plants and going to build new plants.  Fiat Chrysler was at a meeting where they’re doing the same.  Jack Ma — we have so many people that want to come into the United States.  It’s actually very exciting.

I think it’s going to be a very exciting period of time for the United States and for the workers of the United States, because they have been truly the forgotten man and forgotten women.  It’s not going to be forgotten anymore, believe me.

So our relationship with Canada is outstanding, and we’re going to work together to make it even better.  And as far as the southern border is concerned, we’re going to get that worked out.  We’re going to make it fair, but we are going to make it so that everybody is happy.  It’s very important to me.

Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
2:42 P.M. EST

Full Text Political Transcripts February 9, 2017: 9th Circuit of Appeal Denies Reinstatement of President Donald Trump’s Travel Ban Washington v Trump Opinion

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

02/09/2017

Published Order Denying Stay PD

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF    No. 17-35105
MINNESOTA,    D.C. No.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.    2:17-cv-00141

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the    ORDER
United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; REX W.
TILLERSON, Secretary of State; JOHN
F. KELLY, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellants.

Motion for Stay of an Order of the
United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2017

Filed February 9, 2017
Before: William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and
Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges
Per Curiam Order

COUNSEL
August E. Flentje (argued), Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General; Douglas N. Letter, Sharon Swingle, H. Thomas Byron, Lowell V. Sturgill Jr., and Catherine Dorsey, Attorneys, Appellate Staff; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Noel J. Francisco, Acting Solicitor General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellants.
Noah G. Purcell (argued), Solicitor General; Marsha Chien and Patricio A. Marquez, Assistant Attorneys General; Colleen M. Melody, Civil Rights Unit Chief; Anne E. Egeler, Deputy Solicitor General; Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General; Attorney General’s Office, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Washington.
Jacob Campion, Assistant Attorney General; Alan I. Gilbert, Solicitor General; Lori Swanson, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Minnesota.

ORDER
PER CURIAM:
At issue in this emergency proceeding is Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which, among other changes to immigration policies and procedures, bans for 90 days the entry into the United States of individuals from seven countries. Two States challenged the Executive Order as unconstitutional and violative of federal law, and a federal district court preliminarily ruled in their favor and
temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Executive Order. The Government now moves for an emergency stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order while its appeal of that order proceeds.
To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.
Background
On January 27, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” (the “Executive Order”). 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977. Citing the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and stating that “numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes” since then, the Executive Order declares that “the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.” Id. It asserts, “Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.” Id.
The Executive Order makes several changes to the policies and procedures by which non-citizens may enter the United States. Three are at issue here. First, section 3(c) of the Executive Order suspends for 90 days the entry of aliens from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977- 78 (citing the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 217(a)(12), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)). Second, section 5(a) of the Executive Order suspends for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,979. Upon resumption of the refugee program, section 5(b) of the Executive Order directs the Secretary of State to prioritize refugee claims based on religious persecution where a refugee’s religion is the minority religion in the country of his or her nationality. Id. Third, section 5(c) of the Executive Order suspends indefinitely the entry of all Syrian refugees. Id. Sections 3(g) and 5(e) of the Executive Order allow the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to make case-by-case exceptions to these provisions “when in the national interest.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8,978- 80. Section 5(e) states that situations that would be in the national interest include “when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8,979. The Executive Order requires the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to evaluate the United States’ visa, admission, and refugee programs during the periods in which entry is suspended. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977-80.

The impact of the Executive Order was immediate and widespread. It was reported that thousands of visas were immediately canceled, hundreds of travelers with such visas were prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the United States or denied entry on arrival, and some travelers were detained. Three days later, on January 30, 2017, the State of Washington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, naming as defendants the President, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the United States (collectively, “the Government”). Washington alleged that the Executive Order unconstitutionally and illegally stranded its residents abroad, split their families, restricted their travel, and damaged the State’s economy and public universities in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, the INA, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington also alleged that the Executive Order was not truly meant to protect against terror attacks by foreign nationals but rather was intended to enact a “Muslim ban” as the President had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.
Washington asked the district court to declare that the challenged sections of the Executive Order are illegal and unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement nationwide. On the same day, Washington filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to enjoin the enforcement of sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order. Two days later, Washington’s Complaint was amended to add the State of Minnesota as a plaintiff and to add a claim under the Tenth Amendment. Washington and Minnesota (collectively, “the States”) jointly filed an amended motion for a TRO. The Government opposed the motion the next day, and the district court held a hearing the day after that.
That evening, the court entered a written order granting the TRO. Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) . The district court preliminarily concluded that significant and ongoing harm was being inflicted on substantial numbers of people, to the detriment of the States, by means of an Executive Order that the States were likely to be able to prove was unlawful. Id. at *2. The district court enjoined and restrained the nationwide enforcement of sections 3(c) and 5(a) -(c) in their entirety. Id. It enjoined section 5(e) to the extent that section “purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities,” and prohibited the government from “proceeding with any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.” The court also directed the parties to propose a briefing schedule for the States’ request for a preliminary injunction and denied the Government’s motion to stay the TRO pending an emergency appeal. Id. at *3.
The Government filed a notice of appeal the next day and sought an emergency stay in this court, including an immediate stay while its emergency stay motion was under consideration. We denied the request for an immediate stay and set deadlines for the filing of responsive and reply briefs on the emergency stay motion over the next two days.1 Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 469608 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2017). The motion was submitted after oral argument was conducted by telephone.
1 We have also received many amicus curiae briefs in support of both the Government and the States.

Appellate Jurisdiction
The States argue that we lack jurisdiction over the Government’s stay motion because the Government’s appeal is premature. A TRO is not ordinarily appealable.
See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th Cir. 2002). We may nonetheless review an order styled as a TRO if it “possesses the qualities of a preliminary injunction.”
Serv. Emps. Int’l Union v. Nat’l Union of Healthcare Workers, 598 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010). This rule has ordinarily required the would-be appellant to show that the TRO was strongly challenged in adversarial proceedings before the district court and that it has or will remain in force for longer than the fourteen-day period identified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). See, e.g., id.
We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the district court’s order possesses the qualities of an appealable preliminary injunction. The parties vigorously contested the legal basis for the TRO in written briefs and oral arguments before the district court. The district court’s order has no expiration date, and no hearing has been scheduled. Although the district court has recently scheduled briefing on the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction, it is apparent from the district court’s scheduling order that the TRO will remain in effect for longer than fourteen days. In light of the unusual circumstances of this case, in which the Government has argued that emergency relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent terrorism, we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO should be considered to have the qualities of a reviewable preliminary injunction.
Standing
The Government argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the States have no standing to sue. We have an independent obligation to ascertain our jurisdiction, Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and we consider the Government’s argument de novo, see, e.g., Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016). We conclude that the States have made a sufficient showing to support standing, at least at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.
Article III, section 2 of the Constitution allows federal courts to consider only “Cases” and “Controversies.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516 (2007). “Those two words confine ‘the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.’” Id. (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)). ”Standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement” and is therefore a prerequisite to our jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The “gist of the question of standing” is whether the plaintiff has a sufficiently “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy” to ensure that the parties will be truly adverse and their legal presentations sharpened. Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 517 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury.” Id. (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61).
Because standing is “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case,” it “must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. At this very preliminary stage of the litigation, the States may rely on the allegations in their Complaint and whatever other evidence they submitted in support of their TRO motion to meet their burden. See id. With these allegations and evidence, the States must make a “clear showing of each element of standing.” Townley v. Miller, 722 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013).3
The States argue that the Executive Order causes a concrete and particularized injury to their public universities, which the parties do not dispute are branches of the States under state law. See, e.g., Hontz v. State, 714 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Wash. 1986) (en banc); Univ. of Minn. v. Raygor, 620 N.W.2d 680, 683 (Minn. 2001).
Specifically, the States allege that the teaching and research missions of their universities are harmed by the Executive Order’s effect on their faculty and students who are nationals of the seven affected countries. These students and faculty cannot travel for research, academic collaboration, or for personal reasons, and their families abroad cannot visit. Some have been stranded outside the country, unable to return to the universities at all. The schools cannot consider attractive student candidates and cannot hire faculty from the seven affected countries, which they have done in the past.
According to declarations filed by the States, for example, two visiting scholars who had planned to spend time at Washington State University were not permitted to enter the United States; one was informed he would be unable to obtain a visa. Similarly, the University of Washington was in the process of sponsoring three prospective employees from countries covered by the Executive Order for visas; it had made plans for their arrival beginning in February 2017, but they have been unable to enter the United States. The University of Washington also sponsored two medicine and science interns who have been prevented by the Executive Order from coming to the University of Washington. The University of Washington has already incurred the costs of visa applications for those interns and will lose its investment if they are not admitted. Both schools have a mission of “global engagement” and rely on such visiting students, scholars, and faculty to advance their educational goals. Students and faculty at Minnesota’s public universities were similarly restricted from traveling for academic and personal reasons.
Under the “third party standing” doctrine, these injuries to the state universities give the States standing to assert the rights of the students, scholars, and faculty affected by the Executive Order. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114-16 (1976) (explaining that third-party standing is allowed when the third party’s interests are “inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue”; when the litigant is “fully, or very nearly, as effective a proponent of the right” as the third party; or when the third party is less able to assert her own rights). Vendors, for example, “have been uniformly permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function.” Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 195 (1976). Likewise, doctors have been permitted to assert the rights of their patients. See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). And advocacy organizations such as the NAACP have been permitted to assert the constitutional rights of their members.
Most relevant for our purposes, schools have been permitted to assert the rights of their students. See, e.g., Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 175 & n.13 (1976) (“It is clear that the schools have standing to assert these arguments [asserting free-association rights, privacy rights, and ‘a parent’s right to direct the education of his children’] on behalf of their patrons.”); Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 536 (1925) (allowing a school to assert the “right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training [and] the right of the child to influence the parents’ choice of a school”); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Pierce and rejecting the argument that the plaintiff school had no standing to assert claims of discrimination against its minority students); see also Ohio Ass’n of Indep. Sch. v. Goff, 92 F.3d 419, 422 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing similar authorities). As in those cases, the interests of the States’ universities here are aligned with their students. The students’ educational success is “inextricably bound up” in the universities’ capacity to teach them. Singleton, 428 U.S. at 115. And the universities’ reputations depend on the success of their professors’ research. Thus, as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members.
We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order. The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the Executive Order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave. And we have no difficulty concluding that the States’ injuries would be redressed if they could obtain the relief they ask for: a declaration that the Executive Order violates the Constitution and an injunction barring its enforcement. The Government does not argue otherwise.
We therefore hold that the States have standing.
Reviewability of the Executive Order
The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control” (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that courts should defer to the political branches with respect to national security and foreign relations). Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.
There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”). Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)). We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.
Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context. See Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (emphasizing that the power of the political branches over immigration “is subject to important constitutional limitations”); Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41 (rejecting the argument that Congress has “unreviewable authority over the regulation of aliens,” and affirming that courts can review “whether Congress has chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing that power”).6 Our court has likewise made clear that “[a]lthough alienage classifications are closely connected to matters of foreign policy and national security,” courts “can and do review foreign policy arguments that are offered to justify legislative or executive action when constitutional rights are at stake.” American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), does not compel a different conclusion. The Government cites Mandel for the proposition that “‘when the Executive exercises’ immigration authority ‘on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion.’” The Government omits portions of the quoted language to imply that this standard governs judicial review of all executive exercises of immigration authority. In fact, the Mandel standard applies to lawsuits challenging an executive branch official’s decision to issue or deny an individual visa based on the application of a congressionally enumerated standard to the particular facts presented by that visa application. The present case, by contrast, is not about the application of a specifically enumerated congressional policy to the particular facts presented in an individual visa application. Rather, the States are challenging the President’s promulgation of sweeping immigration policy. Such exercises of policymaking authority at the highest levels of the political branches are plainly not subject to the Mandel standard; as cases like Zadvydas and Chadha make clear, courts can and do review constitutional challenges to the substance and implementation of immigration policy. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 695; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41.
This is no less true when the challenged immigration action implicates national security concerns. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 19 (1942) (stating that courts have a duty, “in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty”); Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866) (“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace . . . under all circumstances.”). We are mindful that deference to the political branches is particularly appropriate with respect to national security and foreign affairs, given the relative institutional capacity, informational access, and expertise of the courts. See Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 33-34.
Nonetheless, “courts are not powerless to review the political branches’ actions” with respect to matters of national security. Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532, 559 n.17 (9th Cir. 2005). To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 34 (quoting id. at 61 (Breyer, J., dissenting)); see also United States v. Robel , 389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967) (“‘[N]ational defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965) (“[S]imply because a statute deals with foreign relations [does not mean that] it can grant the Executive totally unrestricted freedom of choice.”).
Indeed, federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of—and even invalidate—actions taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict. See, e.g., Boumediene, 553 U.S. 723 (striking down a federal statute purporting to deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by non-citizens being held as “enemy combatants” after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere and accused of authorizing, planning, committing, or aiding the terrorist attacks perpetrated on September 11, 2001); Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) (holding unconstitutional a statute denying passports to American members of the Communist Party despite national security concerns); Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) (holding unconstitutional the detention of a law-abiding and loyal American of Japanese ancestry during World War II and affirming federal court jurisdiction over habeas petitions by such individuals). As a plurality of the Supreme Court cautioned in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), “Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.” Id. at 536 (plurality opinion).
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.
Legal Standard
The Government moves to stay the district court’s order pending this appeal. “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). “It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion,’ and ‘the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Id. (quoting Virginian, 272 U.S. at 672-73) (alterations omitted) . “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433-34.
Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Lair v. Bullock , 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). “The first two factors . . . are the most critical,” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434, and the last two steps are reached “[o]nce an applicant satisfies the first two factors,” id. at 435. We conclude that the Government has failed to clear each of the first two critical steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of a stay. We emphasize, however, that our analysis is a preliminary one. We are tasked here with deciding only whether the Government has made a strong showing of its likely success in this appeal and whether the district court’s TRO should be stayed in light of the relative hardships and the public interest.
The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’ Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view as to any of the States’ other claims.
Likelihood of Success—Due Process
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from depriving individuals of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing “notice and an opportunity to respond,” or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered. United States v. Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195, 1204 (9th Cir. 2014); accord Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985); ASSE Int’l, Inc. v. Kerry, 803 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th Cir. 2015).
The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel. Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive Order provides for such process. Rather, in addition to the arguments addressed in other parts of this opinion, the Government argues that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause.
In the district court, the States argued that the Executive Order violates the procedural due process rights of various aliens in at least three independent ways. First, section 3(c) denies re-entry to certain lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visaholders without constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity to respond. Second, section 3(c) prohibits certain lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visaholders from exercising their separate and independent constitutionally protected liberty interests in travelling abroad and thereafter re- entering the United States. Third, section 5 contravenes the procedures provided by federal statute for refugees seeking asylum and related relief in the United States. The district court held generally in the TRO that the States were likely to prevail on the merits of their due process claims, without discussing or offering analysis as to any specific alleged violation.
At this stage of the proceedings, it is the Government’s burden to make “a strong showing that [it] is likely to” prevail against the States’ procedural due process claims. Lair v. Bullock , 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). We are not persuaded that the Government has carried its burden for a stay pending appeal.
The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States’ procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens. For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (“[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry. See id. at 35 (“[T]he courts must evaluate the particular circumstances and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.”).
The Government has argued that, even if lawful permanent residents have due process rights, the States’ challenge to section 3(c) based on its application to lawful permanent residents is moot because several days after the Executive Order was issued, White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II issued “[a]uthoritative [g]uidance” stating that sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Executive Order do not apply to lawful permanent residents. At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.
Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings. On this record, therefore, we cannot conclude that the Government has shown that it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (emphasis added).
Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 693; non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, see Landon, 459 U.S. 33- 34; refugees, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note 8; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). Accordingly, the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive Order. Indeed, the existence of such persons is obvious.
The Government argues that, even if the States have shown that they will likely succeed on some of their procedural due process claims, the district court nevertheless erred by issuing an “overbroad” TRO. Specifically, the Government argues that the TRO is overbroad in two independent respects: (1) the TRO extends beyond lawful permanent residents, and covers aliens who cannot assert cognizable liberty interests in connection with travelling into and out of the United States, and (2) the TRO applies nationwide, and enjoins application of the Executive Order outside Washington and Minnesota. We decline to modify the scope of the TRO in either respect.
First, we decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.” That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. That would also omit claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (six Justices declining to adopt a rule that would categorically bar U.S. citizens from asserting cognizable liberty interests in the receipt of visas by alien spouses). There might be persons covered by the TRO who do not have viable due process claims, but the Government’s proposed revision leaves out at least some who do.

Second, we decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform immigration law and policy. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) . At this stage of the litigation, we do not need to and do not reach such a legal conclusion for ourselves, but we cannot say that the Government has established that a contrary view is likely to prevail. Moreover, even if limiting the geographic scope of the injunction would be desirable, the Government has not proposed a workable alternative form of the TRO that accounts for the nation’s multiple ports of entry and interconnected transit system and that would protect the proprietary interests of the States at issue here while nevertheless applying only within the States’ borders.
More generally, even if the TRO might be overbroad in some respects, it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order. See United States v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 479 (1995) (declining to rewrite a statute to eliminate constitutional defects); cf. Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 516 (1964) (invalidating a restriction on freedom of travel despite the existence of constitutional applications). The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions. For now, it is enough for us to conclude that the Government has failed to establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal.
Likelihood of Success—Religious Discrimination
The First Amendment prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. A law that has a religious, not secular, purpose violates that clause, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971), as does one that “officially prefer[s] [one religious denomination] over another,” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The Supreme Court has explained that this is because endorsement of a religion “sends the ancillary message to . . . nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.’” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe , 530 U.S. 290, 310 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). The Equal Protection Clause likewise prohibits the Government from impermissibly discriminating among persons based on religion. De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 50 (9th Cir. 1978).
The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).
The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.
The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest
The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Although we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010), the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.
The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.7 Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.8 We disagree, as explained above.
To the extent that the Government claims that it has suffered an institutional injury by erosion of the separation of powers, that injury is not “irreparable.” It may yet pursue and vindicate its interests in the full course of this litigation.
See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 767- 68 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[I]t is the resolution of the case on the merits, not whether the injunction is stayed pending appeal, that will affect those principles.”).
By contrast, the States have offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple “other parties interested in the proceeding.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). When the Executive Order was in effect, the States contend that the travel prohibitions harmed the States’ university employees and students, separated families, and stranded the States’ residents abroad. These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms. See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976))).
The Government suggests that the Executive Order’s discretionary waiver provisions are a sufficient safety valve for those who would suffer unnecessarily, but it has offered no explanation for how these provisions would function in practice: how would the “national interest” be determined, who would make that determination, and when? Moreover, as we have explained above, the Government has not otherwise explained how the Executive Order could realistically be administered only in parts such that the injuries listed above would be avoided.
Finally, in evaluating the need for a stay, we must consider the public interest generally. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages. On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from
discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED.

Full Text Political Transcripts February 9, 2017: Documents President Donald Trump Travel Ban Case State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

 

17-35105


Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to provide access to case information.

Date Document Title
02/09/2017 Published Order Denying Stay
02/09/2017 Unpublished Procedural Order
02/09/2017 Appellees’ Notice of filing additional evidence in district court
02/09/2017 Daniel Escamilla Amicus Motion
02/09/2017 Daniel Escamilla Amicus Brief
02/09/2017 Redfin Corporation Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/08/2017 MongoDB, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/08/2017 DiCentral Corporation Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Listen to audio recording of Oral Arguments
02/07/2017 GoDaddy, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 OneLogin, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Technology Start-Ups Joinder to Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Medidata Solutions, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Participating Law Firms of the Employment Law Alliance Amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Order re CNN live stream and recording of oral argument
02/07/2017 David Golden Motion to Intervene
02/07/2017 SpotHero, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and District of Columbia, Amended Amicus Motion and Brief
02/07/2017 SoundCloud, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Molecule Software, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Fitbit, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Postmates Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 District court scheduling order on preliminary injunction
02/07/2017 Day sheet: Party and Counsel Listing for Telephonic Hearing
02/07/2017 Akamai Technologies, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 CREDO Mobile, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Quantcast Corp. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/06/2016 American Immigration Council Exhibits
02/06/2016 American Immigration Council Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2016 Jewish Federation Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Link to oral argument live stream
02/06/2017 Order clarifying live streaming oral argument
02/06/2016 Freedom Watch Amicus Motion
02/06/2017 Order re live streaming argument
02/06/2017 Freedom Watch Amicus Brief
02/06/2017 Muslim Advocates Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Anti-Defamation League Motion for Extension of Time
02/06/2017 Anti-Defamation League Amicus Motion
02/06/2017 Groupon Letter Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Reply In Support of Emergency Motion for Stay
02/06/2017 Washington State Labor Council Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Additional Law Professors Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 National Immigrant Justice Center and ASISTA Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Letter by Additional Technology Companies Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 American Center for Law and Justice Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Vermont Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Pivotal Software Letter Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 SEIU Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 HIAS, Inc. Amicus Motion
02/06/2017 Law Professors Motion to Substitute Corrected Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Anti-Defamation League Amicus Brief
02/06/2017 Constitutional Scholars Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Order denying motion to intervene and setting oral argument
02/06/2017 Reply in support of emergency motion for stay
02/06/2017 Exhibits to response
02/06/2017 Exhibit A to response
02/06/2017 Response to emergency motion for stay
02/06/2017 HIAS amicus brief
02/06/2017 Americans United for Separation of Church and State amicus motion and brief
02/06/2017 ACLU amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017 Law Professors amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017 State of Hawaii Emergency motion to intervene and Exhibits
02/05/2017 Korematsu Center amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017 Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017  Revised scheduling order
02/04/2017 Order denying immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for stay and setting schedule
02/04/2017 Emergency motion for stay
02/04/2017 Video Video recording of hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
02/03/2017 Order Temporary Restraining Order

Full Text Political Transcripts February 4, 2017: President Trump’s Second Week of Action

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

President Trump’s Second Week of Action

Source: WH, 2-4-17

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SECOND WEEK OF ACTION

  • 7: Presidential Actions to Make America Great Again
  • 4: Diplomatic conversations with foreign leaders to promote an America First foreign policy.
  • 4: Meetings to get input from workers and business leaders on jumpstarting job creation.
  • 2: Events for the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court
  • 2: Events to commemorate African American History Month
  • 2: Members of President Trump’s Cabinet sworn in.
  • 1: Bill signed into law
  • 1: Meeting with cyber security experts
  • 1: Commemoration of American Heart Month
  • 1: Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast
  • 1: Letter of Recognition for National Catholic Schools Week

Following Through On His Promise To The American People, President Trump Nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch To The Supreme Court

  • On Tuesday, President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to become Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, filling the seat left behind by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
  • The next day, President Trump met with various stakeholders to thank them for their input in making such an important decision.

President Trump Continued To Drain The Washington Swamp And Further Protect All Americans

PROTECTING AMERICANS: President Trump signed two executive memoranda to protect Americans and sanctioned the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism in Iran.

  • On Friday, the Trump administration sanctioned twenty-five individuals and entities that provide support to Iran’s ballistic missile program and to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force.
  • Last Saturday, President Trump ordered a 30-day review and development of a new plan to defeat ISIS.
  • Last Saturday, to better get advice and information needed to ensure the safety and security of the American people, President Trump signed an executive order that modernized the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.

DRAINING THE SWAMP: President Trump used the power of his office to promote government transparency, preventing lobbying influence, and limiting regulatory overreach.

  • Last Saturday, President Trump signed an executive order establishing new ethics commitments for all Executive branch appointees to limit the influence of lobbyists and Washington insiders.
  • On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order to reduce government regulations by requiring two existing regulations to be ended if a new one is approved.
  • On Tuesday, President Trump signed into law the “GAO Access And Oversight Act Of 2017” (H.R.72) allowing the Government Accountability Office to gather records from all federal agencies so it can be more responsive to civil action.

President Trump Continued To Put Jobs Front And Center Through Two Executive Actions And Holding Four Stakeholder Meetings With Labor And Business Leaders

FREEING UP THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM: President Trump made two Presidential actions to better enable the financial system to promote job creation and serve all Americans

  • On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order to regulate the financial system in a way that protects consumers while promoting economic growth and job creation.
  • On Friday, President Trump issued a memorandum to prevent the unintended consequences of financial fiduciary rules from limiting economic opportunity and American’s investments.

HEARING FROM STAKEHOLDERS: Throughout the week, President Trump met with labor and business leaders to get input on how best to jumpstart job creation for all Americans.

  • On Monday, President Trump met with small business owners to get input on how to spur job creation and help businesses like theirs succeed.
  • On Tuesday, President Trump met with leaders in the pharmaceutical industry to discuss how jobs can be brought back to America and reduce prices so all Americans can afford quality healthcare.
  • On Thursday, President Trump met with the executives of Harley-Davidson and union representatives to encourage American manufacturing.
  • On Friday, President Trump met with his economic advisory council to discuss ways to deliver jobs to all Americans.

To Start African American History Month, President Trump Honored The History Of The African American Community And Their Vast Contribution To American Society

  • On Wednesday, President Trump met with African American community leaders to honor their contribution and listen to their input on what can be done to improve the lives of all Americans.
  • The same day, President Trump signed a proclamation honoring February 2017 as Black History Month.

Despite Historic Democratic Obstructionism, President Trump Continued To Get His Cabinet Nominees Confirmed By Congress

  • On Tuesday, Elaine Chao was sworn in as President Trump’s Secretary of Transportation.
  • On Wednesday, Rex Tillerson was sworn in as President Trump’s Secretary of State.

President Trump Held Three Conversations With Foreign Leaders To Promote American Interests Around The Globe

  • On Sunday, President Trump spoke with King Salman bin Abd Al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia on creating safe zones in Syria and Yemen to help refugees and strict enforcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran.
  • On Sunday, President Trump spoke with the Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Muhammad bin Zayid Al Nuhayyan of the United Arab Emirates to reaffirm the strong partnership between both countries and combating radical Islamic terrorism.
  • On Sunday, President Trump spoke with Acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn of the Republic of Korea on the important of the their mutual alliance and defending against North Korea.
  • On Thursday, President Trump met with King Abdullah II of Jordan where he conveyed the U.S.’s commitment to Jordan’s stability and defeating ISIS.

To Further Protect America’s Cyber Security, President Trump Met With Experts

  • On Tuesday, President Trump held a listening session with cyber security experts to help fulfill his campaign promise of securing America against cyber threats.

President Trump Spoke At The National Prayer Breakfast

  • On Thursday, President Trump continued to champion repealing the Johnson Amendment to allow representatives of faith to speak freely and without retribution.

President Trump Commemorated American Heart Month

  • On Friday, President Trump proclaimed February 2017 as American Heart Month.

President Trump Recognized National Catholic Schools Week

  • On Friday, President Trump issued a letter recognizing National Catholic Schools week.

In Two Weeks Of Action, The President Has Been Relentless In This Effort To Make America Great Again

  • 21 Presidential Actions
  • 16 Meetings With Foreign Leaders
  • 10 Stakeholder Meetings
  • 6 Cabinet Members Sworn-In
  • 4 National Proclamations
  • 3 Agency Visits
  • 2 Speeches
  • 1 Legislation signed into law
  • 1 Supreme Court Nomination
  • 1 Manufacturing Initiative Launch
  • 1 Thank-You Reception
  • 1 Letter Of Recognition

Full Text Political Transcripts January 30, 2017: Former President Barack Obama’s Statement on President Donald Trump’s Immigration Order

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

Former President Barack Obama’s Statement on President Donald Trump’s Immigration Order Supporting Protests

President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. In his final official speech as President, he spoke about the important role of citizen and how all Americans have a responsibility to be the guardians of our democracy — not just during an election but every day.

Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.

With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.

Full Text Political Transcripts January 28, 2017: President Donald Trump’s First Week of Action

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

President Trump’s First Week of Action

Source: WH, 1-28-17

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FIRST WEEK OF ACTION

  • 15: Presidential Actions to begin fulfilling his promises to Make America Great Again.
  • 11: Diplomatic conversations with foreign leaders to promote an America First foreign policy.
  • 4: Members of President Trump’s cabinet sworn into office.
  • 3: Stakeholder meetings to get input from both workers and business leaders on jumpstarting job creation.
  • 3: Engagements with members of Congress to discuss his agenda.
  • 3: Visits to federal agencies committed to protecting our homeland and ensuring our national security.
  • 1: Official White House visit by a foreign head of state.
  • 1: Reception to honor law enforcement and first responders.
  • 1: Proclamation supporting National School Choice week.
  • The President’s team followed through on his commitment to action, by:
    • collaborating with 28 federal agencies and departments on a near daily basis.
    • discussing legislative items with at least 75 House members or their staffs and 35 Senators or their staffs.
    • making initial contact with governors in each state and territory, and having in-depth discussions with 32 governors or their staff.
    • discussing issues with 22 state attorneys general.
    • beginning outreach to our nation’s largest municipalities and tribes.

President Trump Used The Power Of His Office To Follow Through On His Promises To The American People

WITHIN HOURS OF HIS INAUGURATION: President Trump moved to protect Americans from ObamaCare, government regulations, and future bailouts.

  • On the evening of his Inauguration, President Trump sought relief for Americans from the cost burdens of ObamaCare.
  • Through a memorandum issued by the Chief of Staff, all new regulations were frozen to protect job creators from the crush of new government rules on their businesses.
  • President Trump put a stop to a reckless action that would have reduced funding for the Federal Housing Authority after it was bailed out by the taxpayers as recently as 2013.

MONDAY: President Trump fulfilled his promise to immediately address trade and jobs by withdrawing from the harmful Trans-Pacific Partnership, put in place a hiring freeze, and protected taxpayer money from funding abortions overseas.

  • President Trump protected American workers by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  • To stem the tide of an ever growing government, President Trump put in place a hiring freeze on federal civilian employees.
  • After years of taxpayer money being spent to promote abortions abroad, President Trump reinstated the “Mexico City Policy” to ban such usage.

TUESDAY: President Trump promoted job creation by jumpstarting the construction of two new energy pipelines, requiring the use of American-made materials and equipment in building those pipelines, and reduced the regulatory burden on America’s manufacturing and construction industry.

  • President Trump began the process to finish construction on the Dakota Access Pipeline after a series of delays.
  • After years of delays, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum to revive the Keystone XL pipeline.
  • To make sure Americans benefit from infrastructure projects, the President signed an executive memorandum requiring all new construction and repair of pipelines to use American materials and equipment.
  • President Trump ordered the Commerce Department to streamline and reduce regulations affecting U.S. manufacturing to help bring factories back to America.
  • To jumpstart much needed infrastructure projects, President Trump signed an executive order to speed up the environmental impact review of projects.

WEDNESDAY: President Trump followed through on his pledge to protect America’s borders and end the lack of compliance with immigration laws.

  • Following through on his commitment to protecting the American people, President Trump signed an executive order to improve border security, particularly through the construction of a physical barrier on the southern border.
  • President Trump signed an executive order to ensure that immigration laws are enforced throughout the United States, including halting federal funding for sanctuary cities.

FRIDAY: President Trump followed through on his top priority to keep America safe.

  • President Trump signed an executive order protecting the United States from foreign nationals entering from countries compromised by terrorism, and ensuring a more rigorous vetting process.
  • President Trump issued a presidential memorandum to direct the Secretary of Defense to review our readiness and create plans to rebuild the U.S. military.

President Trump Has Held or Scheduled 11 Conversations With Foreign Leaders To Promote American Interests Around The Globe

  • On Saturday, President Trump spoke with President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico and discussed respect for the sovereignty of both nations.
  • On Saturday, President Trump also spoke with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the importance of strong U.S.-Canada ties.
  • On Sunday, President Trump spoke with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to discuss opportunities to strengthen relations.
  • On Monday, President Trump spoke with President Abdel Fattah Al-Sissi of Egypt, expressing his commitment for a new push in bilateral relations.
  • On Tuesday, President Trump spoke with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India to strengthen relations and cooperation.
  • Today, President Trump spoke again with President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico to discuss bilateral relations, border security and trade.
  • Tomorrow, President Trump is scheduled to speak Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of with Japan
  • Tomorrow, President Trump is scheduled to speak with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.
  • Tomorrow, President Trump is scheduled to speak with President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
  • Tomorrow, President Trump is scheduled to speak with President François Hollande of France.
  • Tomorrow, President Trump is scheduled to speak with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia.

Four Of President Trump’s Nominees Were Confirmed By The Senate And Sworn Into Office

  • Last Friday, retired General John Kelly was sworn in as Secretary of Homeland Security.
  • Also last Friday, retired General James Mattis was sworn in as Secretary of Defense.
  • On Monday, former Congressman Mike Pompeo was sworn in as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
  • On Wednesday, former Governor Nikki Haley was sworn in as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Following Through On His Commitment To Job Creation, President Trump Held Stakeholder Meetings With Business And Labor Leaders

  • On Monday, President Trump met with labor leaders to discuss his plans to renegotiate trade deals and put Americans back to work.
  • Later on Monday, President Trump met with manufacturing leaders to discuss how to bring factories and manufacturing jobs back to America.
  • On Tuesday, President Trump met with key industry leaders to discuss how the auto industry can bring back American jobs.

President Trump Held Meetings Or Spoke With Congressional Leaders To Discuss His Agenda

  • On Monday, President Trump hosted Republican and Democrat congressional leaders and chiefs of staff at the White House to discuss the upcoming legislative agenda.
  • On Tuesday, President Trump met with key Senate leaders to discuss his upcoming choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.
  • On Thursday, President Trump spoke at the Republican congressional retreat in Philadelphia.

President Trump Spoke At The Headquarters Of The CIA, The Department Of Homeland Security, And The Department Of Defense

  • On Saturday, President Trump spoke at CIA headquarters and told a raucous crowd that he’d have their back as he thanked them for their service to the country.
  • On Wednesday, President Trump visited the Department of Homeland Security to reinforce his strong belief in protecting America’s borders.
  • On Wednesday, President Trump visited the Department of Defense to highlight his commitment to rebuild our military.

President Trump Hosted U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May

  • In hosting his first foreign head of state at the White House, President Trump welcomed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Theresa May.

As One Of His First Actions After Inauguration Day, President Trump Thanked American Law Enforcement And First Responders

  • On Sunday, President Trump held a White House Reception to honor and thank law enforcement and first responders who helped make his Inauguration safe and successful.

President Trump Proclaimed National School Choice Week

  • On Thursday, President Trump renewed his commitment to expand school choice for Americans by proclaiming January 22 through January 28, 2017, as National School Choice Week.

The President’s Team Is Following Through On His Commitment To Action

President Trump’s team has worked to ensure his team is in place at various departments and agencies and working to implement his agenda:

  • The White House Office of Cabinet Affairs made 140 calls to 28 separate federal departments and agencies to collaborate on various issues.
  • Cabinet Affairs personally met with 10 Cabinet nominees.
  • Cabinet Affairs coordinated the swearing in of four cabinet members this week by the Vice President.

President Trump’s team has worked to ensure his legislative agenda is well-received in Congress:

  • The White House Office of Legislative Affairs met or spoke with 110 congressional offices or elected representatives in 75 House and 35 Senate offices.
  • Vice President Pence had several in-person meetings this week on Capitol Hill.

President Trump’s team began outreach to our nation’s states, municipalities, and tribes:

  • The White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs made initial contact with the governor’s offices in all of the states and territories.
  • Intergovernmental Affairs held detailed discussions with the governors or their staff in 32 separate states.
  • Intergovernmental Affairs made initial contact with 22 of the 50 state attorneys general.
  • Intergovernmental Affairs has begun outreach to America’s largest municipalities, such as Los Angeles County and met with the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  • Intergovernmental Affairs made contact with the largest tribes in the country and has begun outreach with many leaders.

Full Text Political Transcripts January 27, 2017: President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s Press Conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s Joint Press Conference

President Trump and Prime Minister May’s Opening Remarks

Source: WH, 1-27-17

President Donald J. Trump: “Thank you very much.  I am honored to have Prime Minister Theresa May here for our first official visit from a foreign leader.  This is our first visit, so — great honor.

The special relationship between our two countries has been one of the great forces in history for justice and for peace.  And, by the way, my mother was born in Scotland — Stornoway — which is serious Scotland.

Today, the United States renews our deep bond with Britain — military, financial, cultural, and political.  We have one of the great bonds.  We pledge our lasting support to this most special relationship.  Together, America and the United Kingdom are a beacon for prosperity and the rule of law.  That is why the United States respects the sovereignty of the British people and their right of self-determination.  A free and independent Britain is a blessing to the world, and our relationship has never been stronger.

Both America and Britain understand that governments must be responsive to everyday working people, that governments must represent their own citizens.

Madam Prime Minister, we look forward to working closely with you as we strengthen our mutual ties in commerce, business and foreign affairs.  Great days lie ahead for our two peoples and our two countries.

On behalf of our nation, I thank you for joining us here today.  It’s a really great honor.  Thank you very much.”

Prime Minister Theresa May: “Well, thank you very much, Mr. President.  And can I start by saying that I’m so pleased that I’ve been able to be here today.  And thank you for inviting me so soon after your inauguration.  And I’m delighted to be able to congratulate you on what was a stunning election victory.

And, as you say, the invitation is an indication of the strength and importance of the special relationship that exists between our two countries — a relationship based on the bonds of history, of family, kinship and common interest.  And in a further sign of the importance of that relationship, I have today been able to convey Her Majesty The Queen’s hope that President Trump and the First Lady would pay a state visit to the United Kingdom later this year.  And I’m delighted that the President has accepted that invitation.

Now, today, we’re discussing a number of topics, and there’s much on which we agree.  The President has mentioned foreign policy.  We’re discussing how we can work even more closely together in order to take on and defeat Daesh and the ideology of Islamist extremism wherever it’s found.

Our two nations are already leading efforts to face up to this challenge, and we’re making progress with Daesh losing territory and fighters, but we need to redouble our efforts.  And today, we are discussing how we can do this by deepening intelligence and security cooperation and, critically, by stepping up our efforts to counter Daesh in cyberspace.  Because we know we will not eradicate this threat until we defeat the idea — the ideology that lies behind it.

Our talks will be continuing later.  I’m sure we’ll discuss other topics — Syria and Russia.

On defense and security cooperation, we are united in our recognition of NATO as the bulwark of our collective defense.  And today, we’ve reaffirmed our unshakeable commitment to this alliance.  Mr. President, I think you said — you confirmed that you’re 100 percent behind NATO.  But we’re also discussing the importance of NATO continuing to ensure it is as equipped to fight terrorism and cyber warfare as it is to fight more conventional forms of war.

And I’ve agreed to continue my efforts to encourage my fellow European leaders to deliver on their commitments to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense so that the burden is more fairly shared.  It’s only by investing properly in our defense that we can ensure we’re properly equipped to face our shared challenges together.

And finally, the President and I have mentioned future economic cooperation and trade.  Trade between our two countries is already worth over $150 billion pounds a year.  The U.S. is the single-biggest source of inward investment to the UK, and together we’ve around $1 trillion invested in each other’s economies.  And the UK-U.S. defense relationship is the broadest, deepest, and most advanced of any two countries sharing military hardware and expertise.  And I think the President and I are ambitious to build on this relationship in order to grow our respective economies, provide the high-skilled, high-paid jobs of the future for working people across America and across the UK.

And so we are discussing how we can establish a trade negotiation agreement, take forward immediate, high-level talks, lay the groundwork for a UK-U.S. trade agreement, and identify the practical steps we can take now in order to enable companies in both countries to trade and do business with one another more easily.

And I’m convinced that a trade deal between the U.S. and the UK is in the national interest of both countries and will cement the crucial relationship that exists between us, particularly as the UK leaves the European Union and reaches out to the world.

Today’s talks I think are a significant moment for President Trump and I to build our relationship.  And I look forward to continuing to work with you as we deliver on the promises of freedom and prosperity for all the people of our respective countries.”

Full Text Political Transcripts January 18, 2017: President Barack Obama’s Remarks at his Final Press Conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President in Final Press Conference

Source: WH, 1-18-17

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:24 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Let me start out by saying that I was sorely tempted to wear a tan suit today — (laughter) — for my last press conference.  But Michelle, whose fashion sense is a little better than mine, tells me that’s not appropriate in January.

I covered a lot of the ground that I would want to cover in my farewell address last week.  So I’m just going to say a couple of quick things before I start taking questions.

First, we have been in touch with the Bush family today, after hearing about President George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush being admitted to the hospital this morning.  They have not only dedicated their lives to this country, they have been a constant source of friendship and support and good counsel for Michelle and me over the years.  They are as fine a couple as we know.  And so we want to send our prayers and our love to them.  Really good people.

Second thing I want to do is to thank all of you.  Some of you have been covering me for a long time — folks like Christi and Win.  Some of you I’ve just gotten to know.  We have traveled the world together.  We’ve hit a few singles, a few doubles together.  I’ve offered advice that I thought was pretty sound, like “don’t do stupid…stuff.”  (Laughter.)  And even when you complained about my long answers, I just want you to know that the only reason they were long was because you asked six-part questions.  (Laughter.)

But I have enjoyed working with all of you.  That does not, of course, mean that I’ve enjoyed every story that you have filed.  But that’s the point of this relationship.  You’re not supposed to be sycophants, you’re supposed to be skeptics.  You’re supposed to ask me tough questions.  You’re not supposed to be complimentary, but you’re supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power and make sure that we are accountable to the people who sent us here.

And you have done that.  And you’ve done it, for the most part, in ways that I could appreciate for fairness even if I didn’t always agree with your conclusions.  And having you in this building has made this place work better.  It keeps us honest.  It makes us work harder.  It made us think about how we are doing what we do and whether or not we’re able to deliver on what’s been requested by our constituents.

And for example, every time you’ve asked “why haven’t you cured Ebola yet,” or “why is that still that hole in the Gulf,” it has given me the ability to go back to my team and say, “will you get this solved before the next press conference?”  (Laughter.)

I spent a lot of time in my farewell address talking about the state of our democracy.  It goes without saying that essential to that is a free press.  That is part of how this place, this country, this grand experiment in self-government has to work.  It doesn’t work if we don’t have a well-informed citizenry.  And you are the conduit through which they receive the information about what’s taking place in the halls of power.

So America needs you, and our democracy needs you.  We need you to establish a baseline of facts and evidence that we can use as a starting point for the kind of reasoned and informed debates that ultimately lead to progress.  And so my hope is, is that you will continue with the same tenacity that you showed us to do the hard work of getting to the bottom of stories and getting them right, and to push those of us in power to be the best version of ourselves.  And to push this country to be the best version of itself.

I have no doubt that you will do so.  I’m looking forward to being an active consumer of your work rather than always the subject of it.  I want to thank you all for your extraordinary service to our democracy.

And with that, I will take some questions.  And I will start with Jeff Mason — whose term apparently is not up.  I thought we’d be going out together, brother, but you got to hang around for a while.  (Laughter.)

Q    I’m staying put.

THE PRESIDENT:  Jeff Mason, Reuters.

Q    Thank you, sir.  Are you concerned, Mr. President, that commuting Chelsea Manning’s sentence will send a message that leaking classified material will not generate a tough sentence to groups like WikiLeaks?  How do you reconcile that in light of WikiLeaks’ connection to Russia’s hacking in last year’s election?  And related to that, Julian Assange has now offered to come to the United States.  Are you seeking that?  And would he be charged or arrested if he came here?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, let’s be clear, Chelsea Manning has served a tough prison sentence.  So the notion that the average person who was thinking about disclosing vital, classified information would think that it goes unpunished I don’t think would get that impression from the sentence that Chelsea Manning has served.

It has been my view that given she went to trial, that due process was carried out, that she took responsibility for her crime, that the sentence that she received was very disproportional — disproportionate relative to what other leakers had received, and that she had served a significant amount of time, that it made it sense to commute — and not pardon — her sentence.

And I feel very comfortable that justice has been served and that a message has still been sent that when it comes to our national security, that wherever possible, we need folks who may have legitimate concerns about the actions of government or their superiors or the agencies in which they work — that they try to work through the established channels and avail themselves of the whistleblower protections that had been put in place.

I recognize that there’s some folks who think they’re not enough, and I think all of us, when we’re working in big institutions, may find ourselves at times at odds with policies that are set.  But when it comes to national security, we’re often dealing with people in the field whose lives may be put at risk, or the safety and security and the ability of our military or our intelligence teams or embassies to function effectively.  And that has to be kept in mind.

So with respect to WikiLeaks, I don’t see a contradiction.  First of all, I haven’t commented on WikiLeaks, generally.  The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Mr. Assange’s tweets, so that wasn’t a consideration in this instance.  And I’d refer you to the Justice Department for any criminal investigations, indictments, extradition issues that may come up with him.

What I can say broadly is that, in this new cyber age, we’re going to have to make sure that we continually work to find the right balance of accountability and openness and transparency that is the hallmark of our democracy, but also recognize that there are adversaries and bad actors out there who want to use that same openness in ways that hurt us — whether that’s in trying to commit financial crimes, or trying to commit acts of terrorism, or folks who want to interfere with our elections.

And we’re going to have to continually build the kind of architecture that makes sure the best of our democracy is preserved; that our national security and intelligence agencies have the ability to carry out policy without advertising to our adversaries what it is that we’re doing, but do so in a way that still keeps citizens up to speed on what their government is doing on their behalf.

But with respect to Chelsea Manning, I looked at the particulars of this case the same way I have for the other commutations and pardons that I’ve done, and I felt that in light of all the circumstances that commuting her sentence was entirely appropriate.

Margaret Brennan.

Q    Mr. President, thank you.  The President-elect has said that he would consider lifting sanctions on Russia if they substantially reduced their nuclear stockpile.  Given your own efforts at arms control, do you think that’s an effective strategy?  Knowing this office and Mr. Trump, how would you advise his advisors to help him be effective when he deals with Vladimir Putin?  And given your actions recently on Russia, do you think those sanctions should be viewed as leverage?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, a couple of things.  Number one, I think it is in America’s interest and the world’s interest that we have a constructive relationship with Russia.  That’s been my approach throughout my presidency.  Where our interests have overlapped, we’ve worked together.  At the beginning of my term, I did what I could to encourage Russia to be a constructive member of the international community, and tried to work with the President and the government of Russia in helping them diversify their economy, improve their economy, use the incredible talents of the Russian people in more constructive ways.

I think it’s fair to say that after President Putin came back into the presidency that an escalating anti-American rhetoric and an approach to global affairs that seemed to be premised on the idea that whatever America is trying to do must be bad for Russia and so we want to try and counteract whatever they do — that return to an adversarial spirit that I think existed during the Cold War has made the relationship more difficult.  And it was hammered home when Russia went into Crimea and portions of Ukraine.

The reason we imposed the sanctions, recall, was not because of nuclear weapons issues.  It was because the independence and sovereignty of a country, Ukraine, had been encroached upon, by force, by Russia.  That wasn’t our judgment; that was the judgment of the entire international community.  And Russia continues to occupy Ukrainian territory and meddle in Ukrainian affairs and support military surrogates who have violated basic international law and international norms.

What I’ve said to the Russians is, as soon as you’ve stop doing that the sanctions will be removed.  And I think it would probably best serve not only American interest but also the interest of preserving international norms if we made sure that we don’t confuse why these sanctions have been imposed with a whole set of other issues.

On nuclear issues, in my first term we negotiated the START II treaty. and that has substantially reduced our nuclear stockpiles, both Russia and the United States.  I was prepared to go further.  I told President Putin I was prepared to go further.  They have been unwilling to negotiate.  If President-elect Trump is able to restart those talks in a serious way, I think there remains a lot of room for our two countries to reduce our stockpiles.  And part of the reason we’ve been successful on our nonproliferation agenda and on our nuclear security agenda is because we were leading by example.

I hope that continues.  But I think it’s important just to remember that the reason sanctions have been put in place against Russia has to do with their actions in Ukraine.  And it is important for the United States to stand up for the basic principle that big countries don’t go around and invade and bully smaller countries.  I’ve said before, I expect Russia and Ukraine to have a strong relationship.  They are, historically, bound together in all sorts of cultural and social ways.  But Ukraine is an independent country.

And this is a good example of the vital role that America has to continue to play around the world in preserving basic norms and values, whether it’s advocating on behalf of human rights, advocating on behalf of women’s rights, advocating on behalf of freedom of the press.

The United States has not always been perfect in this regard.  There are times where we, by necessity, are dealing with allies or friends or partners who, themselves, are not meeting the standards that we would like to see met when it comes to international rules and norms.  But I can tell you that in every multilateral setting — in the United Nations, in the G20, in the G7 — the United States typically has been on the right side of these issues.  And it is important for us to continue to be on the right side of these issues, because if we, the largest, strongest country and democracy in the world, are not willing to stand up on behalf of these values, then certainly China, Russia, and others will not.

Kevin Corke.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You have been a strong supporter of the idea of a peaceful transfer of power, demonstrated not terribly far from the Rose Garden.  And yet, even as you and I speak, there are more than five dozen Democrats that are going to boycott the inauguration of the incoming President.  Do you support that?  And what message would you send to Democrats to better demonstrate the peaceful transfer of power?

And if I could follow, I wanted to ask you about your conversations with the President-elect previously.  And without getting into too much of the personal side of it, I’m just curious, were you able to use that opportunity to convince him to take a fresh look at some of the important ideas that you will leave this office with — maintaining some semblance of the Affordable Care Act, some idea of keeping DREAMers here in the country without fear of deportation.  Were you able to use personal stories to try to convince him?  And how successful were you?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I won’t go into details of my conversations with President-elect Trump.  As I’ve said before, they are cordial.  At times they’ve been fairly lengthy and they’ve been substantive.  I can’t tell you how convincing I’ve been.  I think you’d had to ask him whether I’ve been convincing or not.

I have offered my best advice, counsel about certain issues both foreign and domestic.  And my working assumption is, is that having won an election opposed to a number of my initiatives and certain aspects of my vision for where the country needs to go, it is appropriate for him to go forward with his vision and his values.  And I don’t expect that there’s going to be enormous overlap.

It may be that on certain issues, once he comes into office and he looks at the complexities of how to, in fact, provide health care for everybody — something he says he wants to do — or wants to make sure that he is encouraging job creation and wage growth in this country, that that may lead him to some of the same conclusions that I arrived at once I got here.

But I don’t think we’ll know until he has an actual chance to get sworn in and sit behind that desk.  And I think a lot of his views are going to be shaped by his advisors, the people around him — which is why it’s important to pay attention to these confirmation hearings.

I can tell you that — and this is something I have told him — that this is a job of such magnitude that you can’t do it by yourself.  You are enormously reliant on a team.  Your Cabinet, your senior White House staff, all the way to fairly junior folks in their 20s and 30s, but who are executing on significant responsibilities.

And so how you put a team together to make sure that they’re getting you the best information and they are teeing up the options from which you will ultimately make decisions, that’s probably the most useful advice, the most constructive advice that I’ve been able to give him.  That if you find yourself isolated because the process breaks down, or if you’re only hearing from people who agree with you on everything, or if you haven’t created a process that is fact-checking and probing and asking hard questions about policies or promises that you’ve made, that’s when you start making mistakes.  And as I indicated in some of my previous remarks, reality has a way of biting back if you’re not paying attention to it.

With respect to the inauguration, I’m not going to comment on those issues.  All I know is I’m going to be there.  So is Michelle.  And I have been checking the weather, and I’m heartened by the fact that it won’t be as cold as my first inauguration — (laughter) — because that was cold.

Jen Rodriguez.

Q    Right here, Mr. President.  Thank you very much.  You have said that you would come back to fight for the DREAMers.  You said that a couple of weeks ago.  Are you fearful for the status of those DREAMers, the future of the young immigrants and all immigrants in this country with the new administration?  And what did you mean when you said you would come back?  Would you lobby Congress?  Maybe explore the political arena again?  And if I may ask you a second question — why did you take action on “dry foot, wet foot” a week ago?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me be absolutely clear.  I did not mean that I was going to be running for anything anytime soon.  (Laughter.)  What I meant is that it’s important for me to take some time to process this amazing experience that we’ve gone through; to make sure that my wife, with whom I will be celebrating a 25th anniversary this year, is willing to re-up and put up with me for a little bit longer.  I want to do some writing.  I want to be quiet a little bit and not hear myself talk so darn much.  I want to spend precious time with my girls.

So those are my priorities this year.  But as I said before, I’m still a citizen.  And I think it is important for Democrats or progressives who feel that they came out on the wrong side of this election to be able to distinguish between the normal back-and-forth, ebb and flow of policy — are we going to raise taxes or are we going to lower taxes; are we going to expand this program or eliminate this program; how concerned are we about air pollution or climate change.  Those are all normal parts of the debate.  And as I’ve said before, in a democracy, sometimes you’re going to win on those issues and sometimes you’re going to lose.

I’m confident about the rightness of my positions on a lot of these points, but we got a new President and a Congress that are going to make their same determinations.  And there will be a back-and-forth in Congress around those issues, and you guys will report on all that.

But there’s difference between that normal functioning of politics and certain issues or certain moments where I think our core values may be at stake.  I put in that category, if I saw systematic discrimination being ratified in some fashion.  I’d put in that category, explicit or functional obstacles to people being able to vote, to exercise their franchise.  I’d put in that category, institutional efforts to silence dissent or the press.

And for me, at least, I would put in that category, efforts to round up kids who have grown up here and for all practical purposes are American kids and send them someplace else when they love this country; they are our kids’ friends and their classmates, and are now entering into community colleges or, in some cases, serving in our military.  The notion that we would just arbitrarily, or because of politics, punish those kids when they didn’t do anything wrong themselves I think would be something that would merit me speaking out.  It doesn’t mean that I would get on the ballot anywhere.

With respect to “wet foot, dry foot,” we underwent a monumental shift in our policy towards Cuba.  My view was, after 50 years of a policy not working, it made sense for us to try to reopen diplomatic relations, to engage a Cuban government, to be honest with them about the strong disagreements we have around political repression and treatment of dissenters and freedom of press and freedom of religion, but that to make progress for the Cuban people, our best shot was to suddenly have the Cuban people interacting with Americans, and seeing the incredible success of the Cuban American community, and engaging in commerce and business and trade, and that it was through that process of opening up these bilateral relations that you would see over time serious and significant improvement.

Given that shift in the relationship, the policy that we had in place was “wet foot, dry foot,” which treated Cuban emigres completely different from folks from El Salvador, or Guatemala, or Nicaragua, or any other part of the world, one that made a distinction between whether you got here by land or by foot — that was a carryover of a old way of thinking that didn’t make sense in this day and age, particularly as we’re opening up travel between the two countries.

And so we had very lengthy consultations with the Department of Homeland Security.  We had some tough negotiations with the Cuban government.  But we arrived at a policy which we think is both fair and appropriate to the changing nature of the relationship between the two countries.

Nadia Bilbassy.

Q    Thank you, sir.  I appreciate the opportunity, and I want you and your family best of luck in the future.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

Q    Mr. President, you have been criticized and even personally attacked for the U.N. Security Council resolution that considered the Israeli settlements illegal and an obstacle to peace.  Mr. Trump promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem.  He appointed an ambassador that doesn’t believe in the two-state solution.  How worried are you about the U.S. leadership in the Arab world and beyond as an honest broker?  Will this ignite a third intifada?  Will this even protect Israel?  And in retrospect, do you think that you should have held Israel more accountable, like President Bush, Senior, did with the loan guarantees?  Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  I continue to be significantly worried about the Israeli-Palestinian issue.  And I’m worried about it both because I think the status quo is unsustainable, that it is dangerous for Israel, that it is bad for Palestinians, it is bad for the region, and it is bad for America’s national security.

And I came into this office wanting to do everything I could to encourage serious peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.  And we invested a lot of energy, a lot of time, a lot of effort, first year, second year, all the way until last year.  Ultimately, what has always been clear is that we cannot force the parties to arrive at peace.  What we can do is facilitate, provide a platform, encourage.  But we can’t force them to do it.

But in light of shifts in Israeli politics and Palestinian politics; a rightward drift in Israeli politics; a weakening of President Abbas’s ability to move and take risks on behalf of peace in the Palestinian Territories; in light of all the dangers that have emerged in the region and the understandable fears that Israelis may have about the chaos and rise of groups like ISIL and the deterioration of Syria — in light of all those things, what we at least wanted to do, understanding that the two parties wouldn’t actually arrive at a final status agreement, is to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution.  Because we do not see an alternative to it.

And I’ve said this directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I’ve said it inside of Israel.  I’ve said it to Palestinians, as well.  I don’t see how this issues gets resolved in a way that maintains Israel as both Jewish and a democracy, because if you do not have two states, then in some form or fashion you are extending an occupation, functionally you end up having one state in which millions of people are disenfranchised and operate as second-class occupant — residents.  You can’t even call them citizens, necessarily.

And so the goal of the resolution was to simply say that the settlements — the growth of the settlements are creating a reality on the ground that increasingly will make a two-state solution impossible.  And we believed, consistent with the position that had been taken with previous U.S. administrations for decades now, that it was important for us to send a signal, a wake-up call, that this moment may be passing, and Israeli voters and Palestinians need to understand that this moment may be passing.  And hopefully that, then, creates a debate inside both Israeli and Palestinian communities that won’t result immediately in peace, but at least will lead to a more sober assessment of what the alternatives are.

So the President-elect will have his own policy.  The ambassador — or the candidate for the ambassadorship obviously has very different views than I do.  That is their prerogative. That’s part of what happens after elections.  And I think my views are clear.  We’ll see how their approach plays itself out.

I don’t want to project today what could end up happening, but obviously it’s a volatile environment.  What we’ve seen in the past is, when sudden, unilateral moves are made that speak to some of the core issues and sensitivities of either side, that can be explosive.  And what we’ve tried to do in the transition is just to provide the context in which the President-elect may want to make some of these decisions.

Q    Are you worried that this (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, that’s part of what we’ve tried to indicate to the incoming team in our transition process, is pay attention to this, because this is volatile stuff.  People feel deeply and passionately about this.  And as I’ve said I think many times, the actions that we take have enormous consequences and ramifications.

We’re the biggest kid on the block.  And I think it is right and appropriate for a new President to test old assumptions and reexamine the old ways of doing things.  But if you’re going to make big shifts in policy, just make sure you’ve thought it through, and understand that there are going to be consequences, and actions typically create reactions, and so you want to be intentional about it.  You don’t want to do things off the cuff when it comes to an issue this volatile.

Chris Johnson.

Q    On LGBT rights —

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m sorry, where is Chris?

Q    I’m right here in the back.

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m sorry, didn’t see you.

Q    On LGBT rights, we’ve seen a lot of achievements over the past eight years, including signing hate crimes protection legislation, “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal, marriage equality nationwide, and ensuring transgender people feel visible and accepted.  How do you think LGBT rights will rank in terms of your accomplishments and your legacy?  And how confident are you that progress will endure or continue under the President-elect?

THE PRESIDENT:  I could not be prouder of the transformation that’s taken place in our society just in the last decade.  And I’ve said before, I think we made some useful contributions to it, but the primary heroes in this stage of our growth as a democracy and a society are all the individual activists, and sons and daughters and couples who courageously said, this is who I am and I’m proud of it.

And that opened people’s minds and opened their hearts.  And, eventually, laws caught up.  But I don’t think any of that would have happened without the activism — in some cases, loud and noisy, but in some cases, just quiet and very personal.

And I think that what we did as an administration was to help the society to move in a better direction, but to do so in a way that didn’t create an enormous backlash, and was systematic and respectful of the fact that, in some cases, these issues were controversial.

I think the way we handled, for example, “don’t ask, don’t tell” — being methodical about it, working with the Joint Chiefs, making sure that we showed this would not have an impact on the effectiveness of the greatest military on Earth — and then to have Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Chairman Mike Mullen and a Joint Chiefs who were open to evidence and ultimately worked with me to do the right thing — I am proud of that.  But, again, none of that would have happened without this incredible transformation that was happening in society out there.

You know, when I gave Ellen the Presidential Medal of Freedom, I meant what I said.  I think somebody that kind and likeable projecting into living rooms around the country — that changed attitudes.  And that wasn’t easy to do for her.  And that’s just one small example of what was happening in countless communities all across the country.

So I’m proud that in certain places we maybe provided a good block downfield to help the movement advance.

I don’t think it is something that will be reversible because American society has changed; the attitudes of young people, in particular, have changed.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t going to be some fights that are important — legal issues, issues surrounding transgender persons — there are still going to be some battles that need to take place.

But if you talk to young people of Malia, Sasha’s generation, even if they’re Republicans, even if they’re conservative, many of them would tell you, I don’t understand how you would discriminate against somebody because of sexual orientation.  That’s just sort of burned into them in pretty powerful ways.

April Ryan.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Long before today you’ve been considered a rights President.  Under your watch, people have said that you have expanded the rubber band of inclusion.  And with the election and the incoming administration, people are saying that rubber band has recoiled and maybe is even broken.  And I’m taking you back to a time on Air Force One going to Selma, Alabama, when you said your job was to close the gaps that remain.  And with that, what gaps still remain when it comes to rights issues on the table?  And also what part will you play in fixing those gaps after — in your new life?

And lastly, you are the first black President.  Do you expect this country to see this again?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’ll answer the last question first.  I think we’re going to see people of merit rise up from every race, faith, corner of this country, because that’s America’s strength.  When we have everybody getting a chance and everybody is on the field, we end up being better.

I think I’ve used this analogy before.  We killed it in the Olympics in Brazil.  And Michelle and I, we always have our — the Olympic team here.  And it’s a lot of fun, first of all, just because anytime you’re meeting somebody who is the best at anything, it’s impressive.  And these mostly very young people are all just so healthy-looking, and they just beam and exude fitness and health.  And so we have a great time talking to them.

But they are of all shapes, sizes, colors — the genetic diversity that is on display is remarkable.  And if you look at a Simone Biles, and then you look at a Michael Phelps, they’re completely different.  And it’s precisely because of those differences that we’ve got people here who can excel at any sport.

And, by the way, more than half of our medals came from women.  And the reason is, is because we had the foresight several decades ago, with something called Title 9, to make sure that women got opportunities in sports, which is why our women compete better — because they have more opportunities than folks in other countries.

So I use that as a metaphor.  And if, in fact, we continue to keep opportunity open to everybody, then, yes, we’re going to have a woman President, we’re going to have a Latino President, and we’ll have a Jewish President, a Hindu President.  Who knows who we’re going to have?  I suspect we’ll have a whole bunch of mixed-up Presidents at some point that nobody really knows what to call them.  (Laughter.)  And that’s fine.

But what do I worry about?  I obviously spent a lot of time on this, April, at my farewell address on Tuesday, so I won’t go through the whole list.  I worry about inequality, because I think that if we are not investing in making sure everybody plays a role in this economy, the economy will not grow as fast, and I think it will also lead to further and further separation between us as Americans — not just along racial lines.  There are a whole bunch of folks who voted for the President-elect because they feel forgotten and disenfranchised.  They feel as if they’re being looked down on.  They feel as if their kids aren’t going to have the same opportunities as they did.

And you don’t want to have an America in which a very small sliver of people are doing really well and everybody else is fighting for scraps, as I said last week.  Because that’s oftentimes when racial divisions get magnified, because people think, well, the only way I’m going to get ahead is if I make sure somebody else gets less, somebody who doesn’t look like me or doesn’t worship at the same place I do.  That’s not a good recipe for our democracy.

I worry about, as I said in response to a previous question, making sure that the basic machinery of our democracy works better.  We are the only country in the advanced world that makes it harder to vote rather than easier.  And that dates back — there’s an ugly history to that that we should not be shy about talking about.

Q    Voting rights?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I’m talking about voting rights.  The reason that we are the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder to vote is it traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of slavery.  And it became sort of acceptable to restrict the franchise.  And that’s not who we are.  That shouldn’t be who we are.  That’s not when America works best.

So I hope that people pay a lot of attention to making sure that everybody has a chance to vote.  Make it easier, not harder.  This whole notion of election — of voting fraud, this is something that has constantly been disproved.  This is fake news — the notion that there are a whole bunch of people out there who are going out there and are not eligible to vote and want to vote.  We have the opposite problem.  We have a whole bunch of people who are eligible to vote who don’t vote.  And so the idea that we’d put in place a whole bunch of barriers to people voting doesn’t make sense.

And then, as I’ve said before, political gerrymandering that makes your vote matter less because politicians have decided you live in a district where everybody votes the same way you do so that these aren’t competitive races, and we get 90 percent Democratic districts, 90 percent Republican districts — that’s bad for our democracy, too.  I worry about that.

I think it is very important for us to make sure that our criminal justice system is fair and just.  But I also think it’s also very important to make sure that it is not politicized, that it maintains an integrity that is outside of partisan politics at every level.

I think at some point we’re going to have to spend — and this will require some action by the Supreme Court — we have to reexamine just the flood of endless money that goes into our politics, which I think is very unhealthy.

So there are a whole bunch of things I worry about there. And as I said in my speech on Tuesday, we got more work to do on race.  It is not — it is simply not true that things have gotten worse.  They haven’t.  Things are getting better.  And I have more confidence on racial issues in the next generation than I do in our generation or the previous generation.  I think kids are smarter about it.  They’re more tolerant.  They are more inclusive by instinct than we are.  And hopefully my presidency maybe helped that along a little bit.

But, you know, we — when we feel stress, when we feel pressure, when we’re just fed information that encourages some of our worst instincts, we tend to fall back into some of the old racial fears and racial divisions and racial stereotypes. And it’s very hard for us to break out of those, and to listen, and to think about people as people, and to imagine being in that person’s shoes.

And by the way, it’s no longer a black and white issue alone.  You got Hispanic folks, and you got Asian folks, and this is not just the same old battles.  We’ve got this stew that’s bubbling up of people from everywhere.  And we’re going to have to make sure that we, in our own lives, in our own families and workplaces, do a better job of treating everybody with basic respect.  And understanding that not everybody starts off in the same situation, and imagining what would it be like if you were born in an inner city and had no job prospects anywhere within a 20-mile radius, or how does it feel being born in some rural county where there’s no job opportunities in a 20-mile radius — and seeing those two things as connected as opposed to separate.

So we got work to do.  But, overall, I think on this front, the trend lines ultimately, I think, will be good.

Christi Parsons.  And Christi, you are going to get the last question.

Q    Oh, no.  (Laughter and groans.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Christi is — I’ve been knowing her since Springfield, Illinois.  When I was a state senator, she listened to what I had to say.  (Laughter.)  So the least I can do is give her the last question as President of the United States.

Go on.

Q    217 numbers still work.

THE PRESIDENT:  There you go.  Go ahead.

Q    Well, thank you, Mr. President.  It has been an honor.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

Q    And I have a personal question for you, because I know how much you like this.  The First Lady puts the stakes of the 2016 election in very personal terms in a speech that resonated across the country, and she really spoke the concerns of a lot of women, LGBT folks, people of color, many others.  And so I wonder now how you and the First Lady are talking to your daughters about the meaning of this election and how you interpret it for yourself and for them.

THE PRESIDENT:  You know, every parent brags on their daughters or their sons.  If your mom and dad don’t brag on you, you know you got problems.  (Laughter.)  But, man, my daughters are something, and they just surprise and enchant and impress me more and more every single day as they grow up.  And so these days, when we talk, we talk as parent to child, but also we learn from them.

And I think it was really interesting to see how Malia and Sasha reacted.  They were disappointed.  They paid attention to what their mom said during the campaign and believed it because it’s consistent with what we’ve tried to teach them in our household, and what I’ve tried to model as a father with their mom, and what we’ve asked them to expect from future boyfriends or spouses.

But what we’ve also tried to teach them is resilience, and we’ve tried to teach them hope, and that the only thing that is the end of the world is the end of the world.  And so you get knocked down, you get up, brush yourself off, and you get back to work.  And that tended to be their attitude.

I think neither of them intend to pursue a future of politics — and, in that, too, I think their mother’s influence shows.  (Laughter.)  But both of them have grown up in an environment where I think they could not help but be patriotic, to love this country deeply, to see that it’s flawed but see that they have responsibilities to fix it.  And that they need to be active citizens, and they have to be in a position to talk to their friends and their teachers and their future coworkers in ways that try to shed some light as opposed to just generate a lot of sound and fury.

And I expect that’s what they’re going to do.  They do not — they don’t mope.  And what I really am proud of them — what makes me proudest about them is that they also don’t get cynical about it.  They have not assumed because their side didn’t win, or because some of the values that they care about don’t seem as if they were vindicated, that automatically America has somehow rejected them or rejected their values.  I don’t think they feel that way.

I think that they have, in part through osmosis, in part through dinnertime conversations, appreciated the fact that this is a big, complicated country, and democracy is messy and it doesn’t always work exactly the way you might want, it doesn’t guarantee certain outcomes.  But if you’re engaged and you’re involved, then there are a lot more good people than bad in this country, and there’s a core decency to this country, and that they got to be a part of lifting that up.

And I expect they will be.  And in that sense, they are representative of this generation that makes me really optimistic.

I’ve been asked — I’ve had some off-the-record conversations with some journalists where they said, okay, you seem like you’re okay, but really, really, what are you thinking?  (Laughter.)  And I’ve said, no, what I’m saying really is what I think.  I believe in this country.  I believe in the American people.  I believe that people are more good than bad.  I believe tragic things happen, I think there’s evil in the world, but I think that at the end of the day, if we work hard, and if we’re true to those things in us that feel true and feel right, that the world gets a little better each time.

That’s what this presidency has tried to be about.  And I see that in the young people I’ve worked with.  I couldn’t be prouder of them.  And so this is not just a matter of “No Drama Obama” — this is what I really believe.  It is true that behind closed doors I curse more than I do publicly.  (Laughter.)  And sometimes I get mad and frustrated, like everybody else does.   But at my core, I think we’re going to be okay.  We just have to fight for it.  We have to work for it, and not take it for granted.  And I know that you will help us do that.

Thank you very much, press corps.  Good luck.

END
3:23 P.M. EST

Full Text Political Transcripts January 14, 2017: President Barack Obama’s Final Weekly Address: The Honor of Serving You as President

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & 114TH CONGRESS:

Weekly Address: The Honor of Serving You as President

Source: WH, 1-14-17

WASHINGTON, DC — This week, President Obama delivered his final weekly address thanking the American people for making him a better President and a better man. Over the past eight years, we have seen the goodness, resilience, and hope of the American people. We’ve seen what’s possible when we come together in the hard, but vital work of self-government – but we can’t take our democracy for granted. Our success as a Nation depends on our participation. It’s up to all of us to be guardians of our democracy, and to embrace the task of continually trying to improve our Nation. Despite our differences, we all share the same title: Citizen. And that is why President Obama looks forward to working by your side, as a citizen, for all of his remaining days.

MP4MP3

Remarks of President Barack Obama as Delivered
Weekly Address
The White House
January 14, 2017

This week, I traveled to Chicago to deliver my final farewell address to the nation, following in the tradition of Presidents before me.  It was an opportunity to say thank you.  Whether we’ve seen eye-to-eye or rarely agreed at all, my conversations with you, the American people – in living rooms and schools; at farms and on factory floors; at diners and on distant military outposts – are what have kept me honest, kept me inspired, and kept me going.  Every day, I learned from you.  You made me a better President, and you made me a better man.

Over the course of these eight years, I have seen the goodness, the resilience, and the hope of the American people.  I’ve seen neighbors looking out for each other as we rescued our economy from the worst crisis of our lifetimes.  I’ve hugged cancer survivors who finally know the security of affordable health care.  I’ve seen communities like Joplin rebuild from disaster, and cities like Boston show the world that no terrorist will ever break the American spirit.

I’ve seen the hopeful faces of young graduates and our newest military officers.  I’ve mourned with grieving families searching for answers, and found grace in a Charleston church.  I’ve seen our scientists help a paralyzed man regain his sense of touch, and our wounded warriors walk again.  I’ve seen our doctors and volunteers rebuild after earthquakes and stop pandemics in their tracks.  I’ve learned from students who are building robots and curing diseases and who will change the world in ways we can’t even imagine.  I’ve seen the youngest of children remind us of our obligations to care for our refugees, to work in peace, and above all to look out for each other.

That’s what’s possible when we come together in the hard, slow, sometimes frustrating, but always vital work of self-government.   But we can’t take our democracy for granted.  All of us, regardless of party, should throw ourselves into the work of citizenship.  Not just when there’s an election, not just when our own narrow interest is at stake, but over the full span of a lifetime.  If you’re tired of arguing with strangers on the internet, try to talk with one in real life.  If something needs fixing, lace up your shoes and do some organizing.  If you’re disappointed by your elected officials, then grab a clipboard, get some signatures, and run for office yourself.

Our success depends on our participation, regardless of which way the pendulum of power swings.  It falls on each of us to be guardians of our democracy; to embrace the joyous task we’ve been given to continually try to improve this great nation of ours.  Because for all our outward differences, we all share the same proud title: Citizen.

It has been the honor of my life to serve you as President.  Eight years later, I am even more optimistic about our country’s promise.  And I look forward to working along your side, as a citizen, for all my days that remain.

Thanks, everybody.  God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Full Text Political Transcripts January 7, 2017: President Barack Obama’s Farewell Address to the Nation Weekly Address

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & 114TH CONGRESS:

Weekly Address: President Obama’s Farewell Address to the Nation

Source: WH, 1-7-17

WASHINGTON, DC — In this week’s address, President Obama discussed his upcoming farewell address to the nation. In 1796, as George Washington set the precedent for a peaceful, democratic transfer of power, he also set a precedent by penning a farewell address to the American people. And over the 220 years since, many American presidents have followed his lead. Next week, the President will return to his hometown of Chicago to say a grateful farewell to the nation. This will mark the first time that a President has returned to his hometown to deliver such a speech. The President has said that the running thread through his career has been the notion that when ordinary people get involved, get engaged and come together, things change for the better. This belief is at the heart of the American experiment in self-government – and it gives purpose to new generations. Through his address, the President will thank his supporters, celebrate the ways we have changed this country for the better these past eight years, and offer his vision on where we all go from here. The President will deliver his farewell address at 9:00 PM EST on Tuesday, January 10, at McCormick Place in Chicago, Illinois. To tune in on Tuesday, visit WhiteHouse.gov/live.

Remarks of President Barack Obama as Delivered
Weekly Address
The White House
January 7, 2017

Since the days of George Washington, presidents have delivered some form of final message while in office – a farewell address to the American people.

On Tuesday night, in Chicago, I’ll deliver mine.  I chose Chicago not only because it’s my hometown – where I met my wife and we started a family – but also because it’s really where my career in public service began.

The running thread through my career has been the notion that when ordinary people get involved, get engaged, and come together in collective effort, things change for the better.

That’s the belief at the heart of this precious American experiment in self-government.  It’s what gives work and purpose to each new generation.

It’s easy to lose sight of that truth in the day-to-day back-and-forth of Washington and our minute-to-minute news cycles.  But remember that America is a story told over a longer time horizon, in fits and starts, punctuated at times by hardship, but ultimately written by generations of citizens who’ve somehow worked together, without fanfare, to form a more perfect union.

Over the past eight years, we’ve added our own new chapter to that story.

Together, we’ve turned an economy that was shrinking and losing jobs into one that’s growing and creating jobs, with poverty falling, incomes rising, and wages that have jumped faster over the past few years than at any time in the past four decades.

Together, we’ve achieved what eluded politicians of both parties for a century – we’ve moved 20 million more Americans from uninsured to insured, ended the days of discrimination against the up to half of Americans who have a preexisting condition, and secured new rights and protections for everybody with health insurance.

 

Full Text Political Transcripts December 31, 2016: President Barack Obama’s New Years Weekly Address

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & 114TH CONGRESS:

Weekly Address: Working Together to Keep America Moving Forward

Source: WH, 12-31-16

WASHINGTON, DC — In this week’s address, President Obama reflected on the significant progress we’ve made since he took office in 2009. Over the past eight years, we’ve turned the recession into recovery; 20 million more Americans have health insurance; we’ve brought 165,000 troops from Iraq and Afghanistan; we took out Osama bin Laden; and we brought nearly 200 nations together around a climate agreement that could save the planet for our kids. The President reminded us that this extraordinary progress wasn’t inevitable – it was the result of tough choices, and the hard work and resilience of the American people. It will take all of us working together to sustain and build on all that we’ve achieved – that’s how we keep America moving forward.

The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00AM EDT, December 31, 2016.

MP4MP3

Remarks of President Barack Obama as Delivered
Weekly Address
The White House
December 31, 2016

Happy New Year, everybody.  At a time when we turn the page on one year and look ahead to the future, I just wanted to take a minute to thank you for everything you’ve done to make America stronger these past eight years.

Just eight years ago, as I prepared to take office, our economy teetered on the brink of depression.  Nearly 800,000 Americans were losing their jobs each month.  In some communities, nearly one in five folks were out of work.  Almost 180,000 troops were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden was still at large.  And on challenges from health care to climate change, we’d been kicking the can down the road for way too long.

Eight years later, you’ve told a different story.  We’ve turned recession into recovery.  Our businesses have created 15.6 million new jobs since early 2010 – and we’ve put more people back to work than all other major advanced economies combined.  A resurgent auto industry has added nearly 700,000 jobs, and is producing more cars than ever.  Poverty is falling.  Incomes are rising.  In fact, last year, folks’ typical household income rose by $2,800, that’s the single biggest increase on record, and folks at the bottom and middle saw bigger gains than those at the top.

Twenty million more Americans know the financial security of health insurance.  Our kids’ high school graduation rate is at an all-time high.  We’ve brought 165,000 troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and took out Osama bin Laden.  Through diplomacy, we shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program, opened up a new chapter with the people of Cuba, and brought nearly 200 nations together around a climate agreement that could save this planet for our kids.  Almost every country on Earth sees America as stronger and more respected today than they did eight years ago.  And marriage equality is finally a reality from coast to coast.

We’ve made extraordinary progress as a country these past eight years.  And here’s the thing: none of it was inevitable.  It was the result of tough choices we made, and the result of your hard work and resilience.  And to keep America moving forward is a task that falls to all of us.  Sustaining and building on all we’ve achieved – from helping more young people afford a higher education, to ending discrimination based on preexisting conditions, to tightening rules on Wall Street, to protecting this planet for our kids – that’s going to take all of us working together.  Because that’s always been our story – the story of ordinary people coming together in the hard, slow, sometimes frustrating, but always vital work of self-government.

It’s been the privilege of my life to serve as your President.  And as I prepare to take on the even more important role of citizen, know that I will be there with you every step of the way to ensure that this country forever strives to live up to the incredible promise of our founding – that all of us are created equal, and all of us deserve every chance to live out our dreams.  And from the Obama family to yours – have a happy and blessed 2017.

Full Text Political Transcripts December 29, 2016: President Barack Obama issues sanctions against Russia over election interference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & 114TH CONGRESS:

Executive Order — Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency with Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities

Source: WH, 12-29-16

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

TAKING ADDITIONAL STEPS TO ADDRESS THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO SIGNIFICANT MALICIOUS CYBER-ENABLED ACTIVITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in order to take additional steps to deal with the national emergency with respect to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities declared in Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, and in view of the increasing use of such activities to undermine democratic processes or institutions, hereby order:

Section 1. Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13694 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order;

(ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) harming, or otherwise significantly compromising the provision of services by, a computer or network of computers that support one or more entities in a critical infrastructure sector;

(B) significantly compromising the provision of services by one or more entities in a critical infrastructure sector;

(C) causing a significant disruption to the availability of a computer or network of computers;

(D) causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain; or

(E) tampering with, altering, or causing a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions; and

(iii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State:

(A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, the receipt or use for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain, or by a commercial entity, outside the United States of trade secrets misappropriated through cyber-enabled means, knowing they have been misappropriated, where the misappropriation of such trade secrets is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States;

(B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsections (a)(ii) or (a)(iii)(A) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;

(C) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(D) to have attempted to engage in any of the activities described in subsections (a)(ii) and (a)(iii)(A)-(C) of this section.”

Sec. 2. Executive Order 13694 is further amended by adding as an Annex to Executive Order 13694 the Annex to this order.

Sec. 3. Executive Order 13694 is further amended by redesignating section 10 as section 11 and adding a new section 10 to read as follows:

“Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to determine that circumstances no longer warrant the blocking of the property and interests in property of a person listed in the Annex to this order, and to take necessary action to give effect to that determination.”

Sec. 4. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 5. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on December 29, 2016.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 28, 2016.

Full Text Political Transcripts December 16, 2016: President Barack Obama’s last end-of-year press conference

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & 114TH CONGRESS:

President Barack Obama’s last end-of-year news conference

Source: WaPo, 12-16-16

OBAMA: All right, everybody. Good afternoon. This is the most wonderful press conference of the year. I have got a list of who has been naughty and nice to call on. But let me first make a couple of quick points and then I will take your questions.

Typically I use this year-end press conference to review how far we have come over the course of the year. Today, understandably, I’m going to talk a little bit about how far we have come over the past eight years.

As I was preparing to take office, the unemployment rate was on its way to 10 percent. Today it is at 4.6 percent, the lowest in nearly a decade. We’ve seen the longest streak of job growth on record, and wages have grown faster over the past few years than at any time in the past 40.

When I came into office, 44 million people were uninsured. Today we have covered more than 20 million of them. For the first time in our history, more than 90 percent of Americans are insured.

In fact, yesterday was the biggest day ever for health care.gov, more than 670,000 Americans signed up to get covered, and more are signing up by the day.

We’ve cut our dependence on foreign oil by more than half, doubled production of renewable energy, enacted the most sweeping reforms since FDR to protect consumers and prevent a crisis on Wall Street from punishing main street ever again.

None of these actions stifled growth as critics are predicted. Instead, the stock market has nearly tripled.

Since I signed Obamacare into law, our businesses have added more than 15 million new jobs, and the economy undoubtedly more durable than it was in the days when we relied on oil from unstable nations and banks took risky bets with your money.

Add it all up, and last year the poverty rate fell at the fastest rate in almost 50 years, while the median household income grew at the fastest rate on record. In fact, income gains were actually larger for households at the bottom and the middle than for those at the top.

And we have done all this while cutting our deficits by nearly two-thirds, and protecting vital investments that grow the middle class.

In foreign policy, when I came into office we were in the midst of two wars. Now nearly 180,000 troops are down to 15,000. Bin Laden, rather than being at large, has been taken off the battlefield, along with thousands of other terrorists.

Over the past eight years no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed an attack on our homeland that was directed from overseas. Through diplomacy, we have ensured Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon without going to war with Iran.

We opened up a new chapter with the people of Cuba. And we have brought nearly 200 nations together around a climate agreement that could very well save this planet for our kids.

And almost every country on Earth sees America as stronger and more respected today than they did eight years ago. In other words, by so many measures our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we started. It is a situation that I’m proud to leave for my successor. And it’s thanks to the American people, to the hard work that you have put in, the sacrifices you have made for your families and your communities, the businesses that you started or invested in, and the way you looked out for one another. And I could not be prouder to be your president.

Of course, to tout this progress does not mean that we are not mindful of how much more there is to do. In this season in particular, we are reminded that there are people who are still hungry, people who are still homeless, people who still have trouble paying the bills or finding work after being laid off.

There are communities that are still mourning those who have been stolen from us by senseless gun violence, and parents who still are wondering how to protect their kids.

OBAMA: And after I leave office I intend to continue to work with organizations and citizens doing good across the country on these and other pressing issues to build on the progress that we have made.

Around the world as well, there are hotspots where disputes have been intractable, conflicts have flared up, and people, innocent people are suffering as result, and nowhere is this more terribly true than in the city of Aleppo. For years, we’ve worked to stop the civil war in Syria and alleviate human suffering. It has been one of the hardest issues that I’ve faced as president.

The world as we speak is united in horror at the savage assaults by the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies on the city of Aleppo. We have seen a deliberate strategy of surrounding, besieging and starving innocent civilians. We’ve seen relentless targeting of humanitarian workers and medical personnel, entire and neighbors reduced to rubble and dust. There are continuing reports of civilians being executed. These are all horrific violations of international law.

Responsibility for this brutality lies in one place alone, with the Assad regime and its allies, Russia and Iran, and this blood and these atrocities are on their hands. We all know what needs to happen. There needs to be an impartial international observer force in Aleppo that can help coordinate an orderly evacuation through say corridors. There has to be full access for humanitarian aid, even as the United States continues to be the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. And beyond that, there needs to be a broader cease-fire that can serve as the basis for a political rather than a military solution.

That’s what the United States is gonna continue to push for, both with our partners and through multilateral institutions like the U.N.

Regretfully, but unsurprisingly, Russia has repeatedly blocked the Security Council from taking action on these issues, so we’re gonna keep pressing the Security Council to help improve the delivery of humanitarian aid to those who are in such desperate need and ensure accountability, including continuing to monitor any potential use of chemical weapons in Syria.

And we’re gonna work in the U.N. General Assembly as well, both on accountability and to advance a political settlement because it should be clear that although you may achieve tactical victories, over the long-term, the Assad regime cannot slaughter its way to legitimacy. That’s why we’ll continue to press for a transition to a more representative government, and that’s why the world must not avert our eyes to the terrible events that are unfolding.

The Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies are trying to obfuscate the truth. The world should not be fooled and the world will not forget.

So even in a season where the incredible blessings that we know as Americans are all around us, even as we enjoy family and friends and are reminded of how lucky we are, we should also be reminded that to be an American involves bearing burdens and meeting obligations to others. American values and American ideals are what will lead the way to a safer and more prosperous 2017, both here and abroad. And by the way, you (ph) embody those values and ideals like our brave men and women in uniform and their families.

So I just want to close by wishing all of them a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

With that, I will take some questions, and I’m gonna start with Josh Lederman of A.P.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

There’s a perception that you’re letting President Putin get away with interfering in the U.S. election and that a response that nobody knows about (inaudible) don’t cut it. Are you prepared to call out President Putin by name for ordering (inaudible)? And do you agree with Hillary Clinton now says, that the hacking was actually partially responsible for her loss?

And is your administration open to correlate with Trump and his team on this issues, tarnishing (ph) the smooth transition of power that you have promised?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, with respect to the transition, I think they would be the first to acknowledge that we have done everything we can to make sure that they are successful, as I promised, and that will continue. And it’s just been a few days since I last talked to the president-elect about a whole range of transition issues. That cooperation’s gonna continue.

OBAMA: There hasn’t been a lot of squabbling. What we’ve simply said is the facts, which are that based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC and that as a consequence, it is important for us to review all elements of that and make sure that we are preventing that kind of interference through cyber attacks in the future. That should be a bipartisan issue, that shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

And my hope is that the president-elect is going to similarly be concerned with making sure that we don’t have a potential foreign influence in our election process. I don’t think any American wants that. And that shouldn’t be a source of an argument.

I think that part of the challenge is that it gets caught up in the carryover from election season. And I think it is very important for us to distinguish between the politics of the election and the need for us as a country, both from a national security perspective but also in terms of the integrity of our election system and our democracy to make sure that we don’t create a political football here.

Now, with respect to how this thing unfolded last year, let’s just go through the facts pretty quickly. At the beginning of the summer, were alerted to the possibility that the DNC has been hacked. And I made (ph) an order, law enforcement, as well as our intelligence teams to find out everything about it, investigate it thoroughly to brief the potential victims of this hacking, to brief on a bipartisan basis the leaders of both the House and the Senate and the relevant intelligence committees.

And once we had clarity and certainty around what in fact had happened, we publicly announced that in fact Russia had hacked into the DNC. And at that time, we did not attribute motives or you know any interpretations of why they had done so.

We didn’t discuss what the effects of it might be. We simply let people know — the public know just as we had let members of Congress know that this had happened.

And as a consequence, all of you wrote a lot of stories about both what had happened and then you interpreted why that might have happened and what effect it was going to have on the election outcomes. We did not — and the reason we did not was because in this hyper-partisan atmosphere, at a time when my primary concern was making sure that the integrity of the election process was not in any way damaged, at a time when anything that was said by me or anybody in the White House would immediately be seen through a partisan lens. I wanted to make sure that everybody understood we were playing this thing straight, that we weren’t trying to advantage one side or another. But what we were trying to do was let people know that this had taken place.

And so if you started seeing effects on the election, if you were trying to measure why this was happening and how you should consume the information that was being leaked, that you might want to take this into account. And that’s exactly how we should have handled it.

Imagine if we had done the opposite, it would become immediately just one more political scrum. And part of the goal here was to make sure that we did not do the work of the leakers for them by raising more and more questions about the integrity of the election right before the election was taking place — at a time, by the way, when the president-elect himself was raising questions about the integrity of the election.

And finally, I think it’s worth pointing out, that the information was already out. It was in the hands of Wikileaks, so that was going to come out no matter what.

What I was concerned about in particular was making sure that that wasn’t compounded by potential hacking that could hamper vote counting, affect the actual election process itself.

And so in early September when I saw President Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that did not happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out, there were going to be some serious consequences if he did not.

And in fact, we did not see further tampering of the election process. But the leaks through Wikileaks had already occurred.

So when I look back in terms of how we handled it, I think we handled it the way it should have been handled. We allowed law enforcement and the intelligence community to do its job without political influence.

We briefed all relevant parties involved in terms of what was taking place. When we had a consensus around what had happened, we announced it, not through the White House, not through me, but rather through the intelligence communities that had actually carried out these investigations.

And then we allowed you and the American public to make an assessment as to how to weigh that going into the election.

And the truth is, is that there was nobody here who did not have some sense of what kind of effect it might have. I am finding it a little curious that everybody is suddenly acting surprised that this looked like it was disadvantaging Hillary Clinton, because you guys wrote about it every day, every single leak about every little juicy tidbit of political gossip, including John Podesta’s risotto recipe.

This was an obsession that dominated the news coverage. So I do think it is worth us reflecting how it is that a presidential election of such importance, of such moment, with so many big issues at stake and such a contrast between the candidates came to be dominated by a bunch of these leaks.

What is it about our political system that made us vulnerable to these kinds of potential manipulations which, as I’ve said publicly before, were not particularly sophisticated. This was not some elaborate, complicated espionage scheme.

They hacked into some Democratic Party e-mails that contained pretty routine stuff, some of it embarrassing or uncomfortable because I suspect that if any of us got our emails hacked into there might be some things that we would not want suddenly appearing on the front page of a newspaper or a telecast, even if there was not anything particularly illegal or controversial about it.

And then it just took off. And that concerns me, and it should concern all of us. But the truth of the matter is, is that everybody had the information. It was out there, and we handled it the way we should have.

Now, moving forward, I think there are a couple of issues that this raises. Number one is just the constant challenge that we are going to have with cyber security throughout our economy and throughout our society.

We are a digitalized culture. And there’s hacking going on every single day. There is not a company, there is not a major organization, there is not a financial institution, there is not a branch of our government were somebody is not going to be fishing for something or trying to penetrate or put in a virus or malware.

And this is why for the last eight years I have been obsessed with how do we continually upgrade our cyber security systems. And this particular concern around Russian hacking is part of a broader set of concerns about how do we deal with cyber issues being used in ways that can affect our infrastructure, affect the stability of our financial systems, and affect the integrity of our institutions like our election process.

I just received, a couple of weeks back, it wasn’t widely reported on, a report from our cyber-security commission that outlines a whole range of strategies to do a better job on this. But it’s difficult because it’s not all housed — the target of cyberattacks is not one entity, but it’s widely dispersed and a lot of it is private, like the DNC. You know, it’s not a branch of government. We can’t tell people what to do.

What we can do is inform them, get best practices. What we can also do is to on a bilateral basis warn other countries against these kinds of attacks, and we’ve done that in the past. So just as I told Russia to stop it and indicated there will be consequences when they do it, the Chinese have in the past engaged in cyberattacks directed at our companies to steal trade secrets and proprietary technology, and I had to have the same conversation with President Xi. And what we’ve seen is some evidence that they have reduced but not completely eliminated these activities, partly because they can use cutouts. One of the problems with the internet and cyber issues is there’s not always a return address, and by the time you catch up to it, you know, attributing what happened to a particular government can be difficult, not always provable in court, even tough our intelligence communities can make an assessment.

What we’ve also tried to do is to start creating some international norms about this to prevent some sort of cyber arms race because we obviously have offensive capabilities as well as defensive capabilities, and my approach is not a situation which everybody’s worse off because folks are constantly attacking each other back and forth, but putting some guardrails around behavior of nation states, including our adversaries, just so that they understand that whatever they do to us, we can potentially do to them.

We do have some special challenges because oftentimes, our economy is more digitalized. It is more vulnerable partly because we’re a wealthier nation and we’re more wired than some of these other countries and we have a more open society and engage in less control and censorship over what happens over the internet, which is also part of what makes us special.

Last point, and the reason I’m going on here is because I know that you guys have a lot of questions about this and I addressed all of you directly about this. With respect to response, my principal goal leading up to the election was making sure that the election itself went off without a hitch, that it was not tarnished and that it did not feed any sense in the public that somehow, tampering had taken place with the actual process of voting and we accomplished that. That does not mean that we are not going to respond, it simply meant that we had a set of priorities leading up to the election that were of the utmost importance.

Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us because we can do stuff to you, but it is also important for us to do that in a thoughtful, methodical way. Some of it, we do publicly. Some of it, we will do in a way that they know but not everybody will. And I know that there have been folks out there who suggests somehow that if we went out there and made big announcements and thumped our chests about a bunch of stuff, that somehow that would potentially spook the Russians.

But keep in mind that we already have enormous numbers of sanctions against the Russians. The relationship between us and Russia has deteriorated, sadly, significantly over the last several years. And so how we approach an appropriate response that increases costs for them for behavior like this in the future but does not create problems for us is something that’s worth taking the time to think through and figure out. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.

So, at a point in time where we’ve taken certain actions that we can divulge publicly, we will do so. There are times where the message will be directly received by the Russians and not publicized. And I should point out by the way, part of why the Russians have been effective on this is because they don’t go around announcing what they’re doing. It’s not like Putin’s gone around the world publicly saying, look what we did. Wasn’t that clever? He denies it.

So the idea that somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn’t read the — the thought process in Russia very well. OK.

QUESTION: Did Clinton lose because of the hacking?

OBAMA: I’m gonna let all the political pundits in this town have a long discussion about what happened in the election. It was a fascinating election. So, you know, I’m sure there are gonna be a lot of books written about it. I’ve said what I think is important for the Democratic Party going forward, rather than try to parse every aspect of the election.

And I — I’ve said before, I couldn’t be prouder of Secretary Clinton, her outstanding service and she’s worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and I don’t think she was treated fairly during the election. I think the coverage of her and the issues was troubling, but having said that, what I’ve been most focused on — appropriate for the fact I am not going to be a politician in about — what is it, 32 days, 31, 34?

(LAUGHTER)

What I’ve said is that I can maybe give some counsel advice to the Democratic Party. And I think the — the — the thing we have to spend the most time on — because it’s the thing we have most control over — is, how do we make sure that we’re showing up in places where I think Democratic policies are needed, where they are helping, where they are making a difference, but where people feel as if they’re not being heard?

And where Democrats are characterized as coastal, liberal, latte- sipping, you know, politically correct, out-of-touch folks, we have to be in those communities. And I’ve seen that, when we are in those communities, it makes a difference. That’s how I became president. I became a U.S. Senator not just because I had a strong base in Chicago, but because I was driving downstate Illinois and going to fish fries and sitting in V.F.W. Halls and talking to farmers.

And I didn’t win every one of their votes, but they got a sense of what I was talking about, what I cared about, that I was for working people, that I was for the middle class, that the reason I was interested in strengthening unions and raising the minimum wage and rebuilding our infrastructure and making sure that parents had decent childcare and family leave, was because my own family’s history wasn’t that different from theirs even if I looked a little bit different. Same thing in Iowa.

And so the question is, how do we rebuild that party as a whole, so that there’s not a county in any state — I don’t care how red — where we don’t have a presence and we’re not making the argument, because I think we have a better argument. But that requires a lot of work. You know, it’s been something that I’ve been able to do successfully in my own campaigns.

OBAMA: It is not something I’ve been able to transfer to candidates in mid-terms and sort of build a sustaining organization around. That’s something I would have liked to have done more of, but it’s kind of hard to do when you’re also dealing with a whole bunch of issues here in the White House. And that doesn’t mean, though, that it can’t be done, and I think there are gonna be a lot of talented folks out there, a lot of progressives who share my values, who are gonna be leading the charge in the years to come.

Michelle Kosinski (ph) of CNN.

QUESTION: Thank you.

This week we heard Hillary Clinton talk about how she thinks that the FBI director’s most recent announcement made a difference in the outcome of the election. And we also just heard in an op-ed her campaign chairman talk about something being deeply broken within the FBI.

He talked about thinking that the investigation early on was lackadaisical, in his words. So what do you think about those comments? Do you think there’s any truth to them? Do you think there’s a danger there that they’re calling into question the integrity of institutions in a similar way that Donald Trump’s team has done?

And the second part to that is that Donald Trump’s team repeatedly — I guess, given the indication that the investigation of the Russian hack as well as retaliation might not be such a priority once he’s in office.

So what do you think the risk is there? And are you going to talk to him directly about some of those comments he made?

OBAMA: Well, on the latter point, as I said before, the transition from election season to governance season is not always smooth. You know, it’s bumpy. There are still feelings that are raw out there. There are people who are still thinking how things unfolded. And I get all that.

But when Donald Trump takes the oath of office and is sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, then he has got a different set of responsibilities and considerations.

And I’ve said this before. I think there is a sobering process when you walk into the Oval Office. And, you know, I haven’t shared previously private conversations I’ve had with the president-elect. I will say that they have been cordial and in some cases have involved me making some pretty specific suggestions about how to ensure that regardless of our obvious deep disagreements about policy, maybe I can transmit some thoughts about maintaining the effectiveness, integrity, cohesion of the office, our various democratic institutions, and he has listened.

I can’t say that he will end up implementing, but the conversations themselves have been cordial as opposed to defensive in any way. And I will always make myself available to him just as previous presidents have made themselves available to me as issues come up.

With respect to the FBI, I will tell you, I’ve had a chance to know a lot of FBI agents. I know Director Comey. They take their job seriously. They work really hard. They help keep us safe and save a lot of lives.

And it is always a challenge for law enforcement when there’s an intersection between the work that they are doing and the political system. It’s one of the difficulties of democracy generally.

We have a system where we want our law enforcement investigators and our prosecutors to be free from politics, to be independent, to play it straight. But sometimes that involves investigations that touch on politics and particularly in this hyper-partisan environment that we’ve been in, everything is suspect, everything you do one way or the other.

One thing that I have done is to be pretty scrupulous about not wading into investigation decisions or prosecution decisions or decisions not to prosecute. I have tried to be really strict in my own behavior about preserving the independence of law enforcement, free from my own judgments and political assessments, in some cases. And I don’t know why it would stop now.

Mike Dorney (ph) of Bloomberg.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

On Aleppo, your views of (ph) what happens there, the responsibility of the Russian government, the Iranian government, the Assad regime (inaudible), but do you, as president of the United States, leader of the free world, feel any personal moral responsibility now at the end of your presidency for the carnage we’re all watching in Aleppo, which I’m sure disturbs you (inaudible)?

Secondly, also on Aleppo, you’ve again made clear your practical disagreements with (inaudible) and President-elect Trump has throughout his campaign, and he said again last night, that he wants to create safe zones in Syria. Do you feel like in this transition, you need to help him toward implementing that or is that not something you need to be doing?

OBAMA: Mike, I always feel responsible. I felt responsible when kids were being shot by snipers. I felt responsible when millions of people had been displaced. I feel responsible for murder and slaughter that’s taken place in South Sudan that’s not being reported on, partly because there’s not as much social media being generated from there.

There are places around the world where horrible things are happening and because of my office, because I’m president of the United States, I feel responsible. I ask myself every single day, is there something I could do that would save lives and make a difference and spare some child who doesn’t deserve to suffer. So that’s a starting point. There’s not a moment during the course of this presidency where I haven’t felt some responsibility.

That’s true, by the way, for our own country. When I came into office and people were losing their jobs and losing their homes and losing their pensions, I felt responsible and I would go home at night and I would ask myself, was there something better that I could do or smarter that I could be that would make a difference in their lives, that would relieve their suffering and relieve their hardship.

So with respect to Syria, what I have consistently done is taken the best course that I can to try to end the civil war while having also to take into account the long-term national security interests of the United States. And throughout this process, based on hours of meetings — if you tallied it up, days and weeks of meetings — where we went through every option in painful detail with maps and we had our military and we had our aid agencies and we had our diplomatic teams, and sometimes, we’d bring in outsiders who were critics of ours.

OBAMA: Whenever we went through it, the challenge was that short of putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground uninvited, without any international law mandate, without sufficient support from Congress, at a time when we still had troops in Afghanistan and we still had troops in Iraq and we had just gone through over a decade of war and spent trillions of dollars and when the opposition on the ground was not cohesive enough to necessarily govern a country and you had a military superpower in Russia prepared to do whatever it took to keep its (inaudible) involved and you had a regional military power in Iran that saw their own vital strategic interests at stake and were willing to maintain that territory in the absence of consent from the Syrian government and now the Russians or the Iranians.

So it may be that with Aleppo’s tragic situation unfolding that in the short term, if we can get more of the tens of thousands who are still trapped there out , that so long as the world’s eyes are on them and they are feeling pressure, the regime in Russia concludes that they are willing to find some arrangement, perhaps in coordination with Turkey, whereby those people can be safe.

Even that will probably be temporary, but at least it solves a short-term issue that’s going to arise.

Unfortunately we are not there yet because right now we have Russians and Assad claiming that basically all the innocent civilians who were trapped in Aleppo are out when international organizations, humanitarian organizations who know better and who are on the ground, have said unequivocally that there are still tens of thousands who are trapped and prepared to leave under pretty much any conditions.

And so right now our biggest priority is to continue to put pressure wherever we can to try to get them out.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Mike, I can’t have too much…

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) but do you see, responsibility notwithstanding, moving in that direction or help President-elect Trump move in that direction?

OBAMA: I will help President Trump — President-elect Trump with any advice, counsel, information that we can provide so that he, once he’s sworn in, can make a decision.

Between now and then, these are decisions that I have to make based on the consultations that I have with our military and the people who have been working this every single day.

Peter Alexander (ph).

QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you very much.

Can you, given all the intelligence that we have now heard, assure the public this was once and for all a free and fair election? And specifically on Russia, do you feel any obligation now as they have been insisting that this isn’t the case to show the proof, as it were? They say, put your money where your mouth is and declassify some of the intelligence and the evidence that exists.

And more broadly, as it relates to Donald Trump on this very topic, are you concerned about his relationship with Vladimir Putin, especially given some of the recent cabinet picks, including his selection for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who toasted Putin with champagne over oil deals together? Thank you.

OBAMA: I may be getting older because these multipart questions, I start losing track.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: I can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was our concern and will continue to be of concern going forward, that the votes that were cast were counted, they were counted appropriately.

We have not seen evidence of machines being tampered with, so that assurance I can provide.

That doesn’t mean that we find every single, you know, potential probe of every single voting machine all across the country, but we paid a lot of attention to it. We worked with state officials, et cetera, and we feel confident that that didn’t occur and that the votes were cast and they were counted.

And so that’s on that point. What was the second one?

QUESTION: Say more about declassification.

OBAMA: Declassification. Look, we will provide evidence that we can safely provide, that doesn’t mean, though, that it can’t be done, and I think there are going to be a lot of talented folks out there, a lot of progressives who share my values who are going to be leading the charge in the years to come.

Michelle Kosinski (ph) of CNN.

QUESTION: Thank you.

This week we heard Hillary Clinton talk about how she thinks that the FBI director’s most recent announcement made a difference in the outcome of the election. And we also just heard in an op-ed her campaign chairman talk about something being deeply broken within the FBI.

He talked about thinking that the investigation early on was lackadaisical, in his words. So what do you think about those comments? Do you think there’s any truth to them? Do you think there’s a danger there that they’re calling into question the integrity of institutions in a similar way that Donald Trump’s team has done?

And the second part to that is that Donald Trump’s team repeatedly — I guess, given the indication that the investigation of the Russian hack as well as retaliation might not be such a priority once he’s in office.

So what do you think the risk is there? And are you going to talk to him directly about some of those comments he made?

OBAMA: Well, on the latter point, as I said before, the transition from election season to governance season is not always smooth. You know, it’s bumpy. There are still feelings that are raw out there. There are people who are still thinking how things unfolded. And I get all that.

But when Donald Trump takes the oath of office and is sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, then he has got a different set of responsibilities and considerations.

And I’ve said this before. I think there is a sobering process when you walk into the Oval Office. And, you know, I haven’t shared previously private conversations I’ve had with the president-elect. I will say that they have been cordial and in some cases have involved me making some pretty specific suggestions about how to ensure that regardless of our obvious deep disagreements about policy, maybe I can transmit some thoughts about maintaining the effectiveness, integrity, cohesion of the office, our various democratic institutions, and he has listened.

I can’t say that he will end up implementing, but the conversations themselves have been cordial as opposed to defensive in any way. And I will always make myself available to him just as previous presidents have made themselves available to me as issues come up.

With respect to the FBI, I will tell you, I’ve had a chance to know a lot of FBI agents. I know Director Comey. They take their job seriously. They work really hard. They help keep us safe and save a lot of lives.

And it is always a challenge for law enforcement when there’s an intersection between the work that they are doing and the political system. It’s one of the difficulties of democracy generally.

We have a system where we want our law enforcement investigators and our prosecutors to be free from politics, to be independent, to play it straight. But sometimes that involves investigations that touch on politics and particularly in this hyper-partisan environment that we’ve been in, everything is suspect, everything you do one way or the other.

One thing that I have done is to be pretty scrupulous about not wading into investigation decisions or prosecution decisions or decisions not to prosecute. I have tried to be really strict in my own behavior about preserving the independence of law enforcement, free from my own judgments and political assessments, in some cases. And I don’t know why it would stop now.

Mike Dorney (ph) of Bloomberg.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

On Aleppo, your views of (ph) what happens there, the responsibility of the Russian government, the Iranian government, the Assad regime (inaudible), but do you, as president of the United States, leader of the free world, feel any personal moral responsibility now at the end of your presidency for the carnage we’re all watching in Aleppo, which I’m sure disturbs you (inaudible)?

Secondly, also on Aleppo, you’ve again made clear your practical disagreements with (inaudible) and President-elect Trump has throughout his campaign, and he said again last night, that he wants to create safe zones in Syria. Do you feel like in this transition, you need to help him toward implementing that or is that not something you need to be doing?

OBAMA: Mike, I always feel responsible. I felt responsible when kids were being shot by snipers. I felt responsible when millions of people had been displaced. I feel responsible for murder and slaughter that’s taken place in South Sudan that’s not being reported on, partly because there’s not as much social media being generated from there.

There are places around the world where horrible things are happening and because of my office, because I’m president of the United States, I feel responsible. I ask myself every single day, is there something I could do that would save lives and make a difference and spare some child who doesn’t deserve to suffer. So that’s a starting point. There’s not a moment during the course of this presidency where I haven’t felt some responsibility.

That’s true, by the way, for our own country. When I came into office and people were losing their jobs and losing their homes and losing their pensions, I felt responsible and I would go home at night and I would ask myself, was there something better that I could do or smarter that I could be that would make a difference in their lives, that would relieve their suffering and relieve their hardship.

So with respect to Syria, what I have consistently done is taken the best course that I can to try to end the civil war while having also to take into account the long-term national security interests of the United States. And throughout this process, based on hours of meetings — if you tallied it up, days and weeks of meetings — where we went through every option in painful detail with maps and we had our military and we had our aid agencies and we had our diplomatic teams, and sometimes, we’d bring in outsiders who were critics of ours.

OBAMA: Whenever we went through it, the challenge was that short of putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground uninvited, without any international law mandate, without sufficient support from Congress, at a time when we still had troops in Afghanistan and we still had troops in Iraq and we had just gone through over a decade of war and spent trillions of dollars and when the opposition on the ground was not cohesive enough to necessarily govern a country and you had a military superpower in Russia prepared to do whatever it took to keep its (inaudible) involved and you had a regional military power in Iran that saw their own vital strategic interests at stake and were willing to send in as many of their people or proxies to support the regime.

And in that circumstance, unless we were all in and willing to take over Syria, we were going to have problems. And everything else was tempting because we wanted to do something and it sounded like the right thing to do but it was going to be impossible to do this on the cheap. And in that circumstance, I have to make decision as president of the United States as to what is best — I’m sorry.

What’s going on? Somebody’s not feeling good. All right. Why don’t we have — we got — we can get our doctors back there to help out. Somebody want to go to my doctor’s office and just send them — all right. Where was I? So we couldn’t do it on the cheap. Now, it may be —

QUESTION: Can we get a doctor in here? Can that be arranged?

OBAMA: Can somebody help out, please, and get Doc Jackson in here? Somebody grabbing our doctor?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Of course. In the meantime, just give her a little room. Doctor will be here in a second. You guys know where the doctor’s office is? So just go through the palm doors. Its right — its right next to the map room. There he is. All right. There’s Doc Jackson. He’s all right. OK. The doctor — the doctor’s in the house.

So — And I don’t mean that — I mean that with all sincerity. I understand the impulse to want to do something, but ultimately what I’ve had to do is to think about, what can we sustain, what is realistic? And my first priority has to be, what’s the right thing to do for America? And it has been our view that the best thing to do has been to provide some support to the moderate opposition so that they could sustain themselves. And that you wouldn’t see anti-Assad regime sentiments just pouring into Al- Nusra and Al-Qaeda or ISIL that we engaged our international partners in order to put pressure on all the parties involved. And to try to resolve this through diplomatic and political means. I cannot claim that we’ve been successful. And so that’s something that, as is true with a lot of issues and problems around the world, I have to go to bed with every night.

But I continue to believe that it was the right approach given what realistically we could get done. Absent a decision, as I said, to go into much more significant way. And that, I think would not have been a sustainable or good for the American people because we had a whole host of other obligations that we also had to meet, wars we had already started and that were not yet finished.

With respect to the issue of safe zones , it is a continued problem, a continued challenge with safe zones is if you are setting up those zones on Syrian territory, then that requires some force that is willing to maintain that territory in the absence of consent from the Syrian government and now the Russians or the Iranians.

So it may be that with Aleppo’s tragic situation unfolding that in the short term, if we can get more of the tens of thousands who are still trapped there out , that so long as the world’s eyes are on them and they are feeling pressure, the regime in Russia concludes that they are willing to find some arrangement, perhaps in coordination with Turkey, whereby those people can be safe.

Even that will probably be temporary, but at least it solves a short-term issue that’s going to arise.

Unfortunately we are not there yet because right now we have Russians and Assad claiming that basically all the innocent civilians who were trapped in Aleppo are out when international organizations, humanitarian organizations who know better and who are on the ground, have said unequivocally that there are still tens of thousands who are trapped and prepared to leave under pretty much any conditions.

And so right now our biggest priority is to continue to put pressure wherever we can to try to get them out.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Mike, I can’t have too much…

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) but do you see, responsibility notwithstanding, moving in that direction or help President-elect Trump move in that direction?

OBAMA: I will help President Trump — President-elect Trump with any advice, counsel, information that we can provide so that he, once he’s sworn in, can make a decision.

Between now and then, these are decisions that I have to make based on the consultations that I have with our military and the people who have been working this every single day. Peter Alexander (ph).

QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you very much.

Can you, given all the intelligence that we have now heard, assure the public this was once and for all a free and fair election? And specifically on Russia, do you feel any obligation now as they have been insisting that this isn’t the case to show the proof, as it were? They say, put your money where your mouth is and declassify some of the intelligence and the evidence that exists.

And more broadly, as it relates to Donald Trump on this very topic, are you concerned about his relationship with Vladimir Putin, especially given some of the recent cabinet picks, including his selection for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who toasted Putin with champagne over oil deals together? Thank you.

OBAMA: I may be getting older because these multipart questions, I start losing track.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: I can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was our concern and will continue to be of concern going forward, that the votes that were cast were counted, they were counted appropriately.

We have not seen evidence of machines being tampered with, so that assurance I can provide.

That doesn’t mean that we find every single, you know, potential probe of every single voting machine all across the country, but we paid a lot of attention to it. We worked with state officials, et cetera, and we feel confident that that didn’t occur and that the votes were cast and they were counted.

And so that’s on that point. What was the second one?

QUESTION: Say more about declassification.

OBAMA: Declassification. Look, we will provide evidence that we can safely provide, that does not compromise sources and methods. But I’ll be honest with you, when you are talking about cybersecurity, a lot of it is classified and we’re not going to provide it, because the way we catch folks is by knowing certain things about them that they may not want us to know and if we’re gonna monitor this stuff effectively going forward, we don’t want them to know that we know.

So, this is one of those situations where, unless the American people genuinely think that the professionals in the CIA, the FBI, our entire intelligence infrastructure, many of whom — by the way, served in previous administrations and who are Republicans — are less trustworthy than the Russians. Then people should pay attention to what our intelligence agencies say.

This is part of what I meant when I said we’ve got to think what is happening to happening to our political culture here. The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country, they are a weaker country, their economy doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy except oil and gas and arms. They don’t innovate.

But they can impact us if we lose track of who we are. They can impact us if we abandon our values. Mr. Putin can weaken us just like he’s trying to weaken Europe if we start buying into notions that it’s OK to intimidate the press, or lock up dissidents, or discriminate against people because of their faith or what they look like.

And what I worry about — more than anything — is the degree to which because of the fierceness because of the partisan battle, you start to see certain folks in the Republican Party and Republican voters suddenly finding a government and individuals who stand contrary to everything that we stand for as being OK, because that’s how much we dislike Democrats.

I mean, think about it. Some of the people who historically have been very critical of me for engaging with the Russians and having conversations with them, also endorsed the president-elect, even as he was saying that we should stop sanctioning Russia and being tough on them and work together with them against our common enemies.

It was very complimentary of Mr. Putin personally. Now that — that wasn’t news. The president-elect during the campaign said so. And some folks who had made a career out of being anti-Russian, didn’t say anything about it. And then after the election, suddenly they’re asking, oh, why didn’t you tell us that maybe the Russians were trying to help our candidate? Well, come on.

There was a survey some of you saw where — not this just one poll, but pretty credible source, 37 percent of Republican voters approve of Putin. Over a third of Republican voters approve of Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave. And how did that happen? It happened in part because for too long, everything that happens in this town, everything that’s said is seen through the lens of does this help or hurt us relative to Democrats or relative to President Obama. And unless that changes, we’re going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we’ve lost track of what it is that we’re about and what we stand for.

With respect to the president-elect’s appointments, it is his prerogative, as I have always said, for him to appoint who he thinks can best carry out his foreign policy or his domestic policy. It is up to the Senate to advise and consent. There will be plenty of time for members of the Senate to go through the record of all his appointees and determine whether or not they’re appropriate for the job.

Martha (inaudible).

QUESTION: Mr. President, I want to talk about Vladimir Putin again. Just to be clear, do you believe Vladimir Putin himself authorized the hack? And do you believe he authorized that to help Donald Trump?

And on the intelligence, one of the things Donald Trump cites is Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction and that they were never found. Can you say unequivocally that this was not China, that this was not a 400-pound guy sitting on his bed as Donald Trump says? And do these types of tweets and kinds of statements from Donald Trump embolden the Russians?

OBAMA: When the report comes out before I leave office, that will have drawn together all the threads, and so I don’t want to step on their work ahead of time. What I can tell you is that the intelligence that I’ve seen gives me great confidence in their assessment that the Russians carried out this hack.

QUESTION: Which hack?

OBAMA: The hack of the DNC and the hack of John Podesta.

Now, the — but again, I think this is exactly why I want the report out, so that everybody can review it. And this has been briefed and the evidence in closed session has been provided on a bipartisan basis, not just to me, it’s been provided to the leaders of the House and the Senate and the chairmen and ranking members of the relevant committees. And I think that what you’ve already seen is, at least some of the folks who’ve seen the evidence don’t dispute I think the basic assessment that the Russians carried this out.

QUESTION: But specifically, could (ph) you not say that…

OBAMA: Well, Martha, I think what I want to make sure of is that I give the intelligence community a chance to gather all the information.

But I’d make a larger point, which is, not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin. This is a pretty hierarchical operation. Last I checked, there’s not a lot of debate and democratic deliberation, particularly when it comes to policies directed at the United States. We have said and I will confirm that this happened at the highest levels of the Russian government and I will let you make that determination as to whether there are high-level Russian officials who go off rogue and decide to tamper with the U.S. election process without Vladimir Putin knowing about it.

QUESTION: So I wouldn’t be wrong in saying the president thinks Vladimir Putin authorized the hack?

OBAMA: Martha, I’ve given you what I’ve — what I’m gonna give you.

What was your second question?

QUESTION: Do the tweets and do the statements by — by Donald Trump embolden Russia?

OBAMA: As I said before, I think that the president-elect, you know, is still in transition mode from campaign to governance. I think he hasn’t gotten his whole team together yet. He still has campaign spokespersons sort of filling in and appearing on cable shows. And there is just a whole different attitude and vibe when you’re not in power as when you are in power.

So rather than me sort of characterize the appropriateness or inappropriateness of what he is doing at the moment, I think what we have to see is how will the president-elect operate and how will his team operate when they’ve been fully briefed on all these issues. They have their hands on all the levers of government. And they have got to start making decisions.

One way I do believe that the president-elect can approach this that would be unifying is to say that we welcome a bipartisan independent process that gives the American people an assurance not only that votes are counted properly, that the elections are fair and free, but that we have learned lessons about how internet propaganda from foreign countries can be released into the political bloodstream and that we have got strategies to deal with it for the future.

The more this can be non-partisan, the better served the American people are going to be, which is why I made the point earlier and I’m going to keep on repeating this point, our vulnerability to Russia or any other foreign power is directly related to how divided, partisan, dysfunctional our political process is. That’s the thing that makes us vulnerable.

If fake news that’s being released by some foreign government is almost identical to reports that are being issued through partisan news venues, then it’s not surprising that that foreign propaganda will have a greater effect. It doesn’t seem that far-fetched compared to some of the other stuff that folks are hearing from domestic propagandists.

To the extent that our political dialogue is such where everything is under suspicion, and everybody is corrupt, and everybody is doing things for partisan reasons, and all of our institutions are, you know, full of malevolent actors, if that’s the story line that is being put out there by whatever party is out of power, then when a foreign government introduces that same argument, with facts that are made up, voters who have been listening to that stuff for years, who have been getting that stuff every day from talk radio or other venues, they’re going to believe it.

So if we want to really reduce foreign influence on our elections, then we had better think about how to make sure that our political process, our political dialogue is stronger than it has been.

Mark Langley (ph).

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

I wonder whether I could move you from Russia to China for a moment.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Your successor spoke by phone with the president of Taiwan the other day, and declared subsequently that he wasn’t sure why the United States needed to be bound by the One China Policy.

He suggested it could be used as a bargaining chip perhaps to get better terms on a trade deal or more cooperation on North Korea. There’s already evidence that tensions between the two sides have increased a bit, and just today, the Chinese have seized an underwater drone in the South China Sea.

Do you agree, as some do, that our China policy could use a fresh set of eyes and what’s the big deal about having a short phone call with the president of Taiwan? Or do you worry that these types of unorthodox approaches are setting us on a collision course with perhaps our biggest geopolitical adversary?

OBAMA: That’s a great question.

I’m somewhere in between. I think all of our foreign policy should be subject to fresh eyes. I think one of the — I’ve said this before, I am very proud of the work I’ve done. I think I’m a better president now than when I started. But you know, if you’re here for eight years in the bubble, you start seeing things a certain way and you benefit from — the democracy benefits, America benefits from some new perspectives.

And I think it should be not just the prerogative, but the obligation of a new president to examine everything that’s been done and see what makes sense and what doesn’t. That’s what I have done when I came in and I’m assuming any new president’s gonna undertake those same exercises.

And given the importance of the relationship between United States and China, given how much is at stake in terms of the world economy, national security, our presence in the Asia-Pacific, China’s increasing role in international affairs, there’s probably no bilateral relationship that carries more significance and where there’s also the potential if that relationship breaks down or goes into full conflict mode that everybody is worse off. So I think it’s fine for him to take a look at it. What I have advised the president-elect is that across the board on foreign policy, you want to make sure that you’re doing it in a systematic, deliberate, intentional way.

And since there’s only one president at a time, my advice to him has been that before he starts having a lot of interactions with foreign governments other than the usual courtesy calls, that he should want to have his full team in place, that he should want his team to be fully briefed on what’s gone on in the past and where the potential pitfalls may be, where the opportunities are, what we’ve learned from eight years of experience so that as he’s then maybe taking foreign policy in a new direction, he’s got all the information to make good decisions, and by the way, that all of government is moving at the same time and singing from the same hymnal.

And with respect to China — and let’s just take the example of Taiwan, there has been a longstanding agreement essentially between China and the United States, and to some agree the Taiwanese, which is to not change the status quo. Taiwan operates differently than mainland China does. China views Taiwan as part of China, but recognizes that it has to approach Taiwan as an entity that has its own ways of doing things.

OBAMA: The Taiwanese have agreed that as long as they’re able to continue to function with some agree of autonomy, that they won’t charge forward and declare independence. And that status quo, although not completely satisfactory to any of the parties involved, has kept the peace and allowed the Taiwanese to be a pretty successful economy and — of people who have a high agree of self-determination. What I understand for China, the issue of Taiwan is as important as anything on their docket.

The idea of One China is at the heart of their conception as a nation. And so if you are going to upend this understanding, you have to have thought through what the consequences because the Chinese will not treat that the way they’ll treat some other issues. They won’t even treat it the way they issues around the South China Sea, where we’ve had a lot of tensions. This goes to the core of how they see themselves.

And their reaction on this issue could end up being very significant. That doesn’t mean that you have to adhere to everything that’s been done in the past, but you have to think it through and have planned for potential reactions that they may engage in. All right. Isaac Dovere, Politico.

QUESTION: Thank you Mr. President. Two questions on where this all leaves us.

OBAMA: What leaves us? Where my presidency leaves us? It leaves us in a really good spot.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: If we make some good decisions going forward.

QUESTION: What do you say to the electors who are going to meet on Monday and are thinking of changing their votes? Do you think they should be given an intelligence briefing about the Russian activity or should they bear in mind everything you have said and have said already (ph)? Should they — should votes be bound by the state votes as they’ve gone? And long-term, do you think that there is need for Electoral College reform that was tied to the popular vote?

OBAMA: Sounded like two but really was one.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: I love how these start. I’ve got two questions, but each one has four parts.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: On the Democratic Party, your labor secretary is running for — to be the chair of the Democratic National Committee. Is the vision that you’ve seen him putting forward what you think the party needs to be focused on? And what do you think about the complaint that say that the future democratic committee shouldn’t be a continuation of some of your political approach? Part of that is complaints that decisions that you have made as president and leader of the party has structurally weakened the DNC and the Democratic Party and they think that that has led to or has help lead to some of the losses in elections around the country. Do you regret any of those decisions?

OBAMA: I’ll take the second one first and say that Tom Perez has been, I believe one of the best secretaries of labor in our history. He is tireless. He is wicked smart. He has been able to work across the spectrum of you know, labor, business, activists. He has produced. I mean, if you look at his body of work on behalf of working people, what he’s pushed for in terms of making sure that workers get a fair deal, decent wages, better benefits, that their safety is protected on the job. He has been extraordinary.

Now others who have declared are also my friends and fine people as well. And the great thing is, I don’t have a vote in this. So – so – so we’ll let the process unfold, I don’t think it’s going to happen any time soon. I described to you earlier what I think needs to happen, which is that the democratic party, whether that’s entirely through the DNC or through rebuilding of state parties, or some other arrangement, has to work at the grassroots level, has to be present in all 50 states, has to have a presence in counties.

Has to think about in that extension (ph) how are we speaking directly to voters.

I will say this, and I’m not going to engage in too much punditry. But that I could not be prouder of the coalition that I put together in my — each of my campaigns. Because it was inclusive and it drew in people who normally weren’t interested in politics and didn’t participate.

But I’d like to think — I think I can show that in those elections, I always cast a broad net. I always said first and foremost we’re Americans, that we have a common creed, that there’s more that we share than divides us. And I want to talk to everybody and get a chance to get everybody’s vote.

I still believe what I said in 2004 which is this red state-blue thing is a construct. Now it is a construct that has gotten more and more powerful for a whole lot of reasons from gerrymandering, to big money, to a way that the media is splintered.

And so people are just watching what reinforces their existing biases as opposed to having to listen to different points of view. So there are all kinds of reasons for it. But outside the realm of electoral politics, I still see people the way I saw them when I made that speech, full of contradictions and some regional differences but basically, folks care about their families.

They care about having meaningful work. They care about making sure their kids have more opportunity than they did. They want to be safe. They want to feel like things are fair.

And whoever leads the DNC and any candidate with the Democratic brand going forward, I want them to feel as if they can reach out and find that common ground and speak to all of America. And that requires some organization.

And you’re right that — and I said this in my earlier remarks, that what I was able to do during my campaigns, I wasn’t able to do during midterms. It’s not that we didn’t put in time and effort into it. I spent time and effort into it. But the coalition I put together didn’t always turn out to be transferable.

And the challenge is that — you know, some of that just has to do with the fact that when you are in the party in power and people are going through hard times like they were in 2010, they are going to punish to some degree the president’s party regardless of what organizational work is done.

Some of it has to do with just some deep standing traditional challenges for Democrats like during off-year elections the electorate is older and we do better with the younger electorate. But we know those things are true.

And I didn’t crack the code on that. And if other people have ideas about how to do that even better, I’m all for it.

So with respect to the electors, I’m not going to wade into that issue. Because, again, it’s the American people’s job and now electors’ job to decide my successor. It is not my job to decide my successor.

And I have provided people with a lot of information about what happened during the course of the election, but more importantly, the candidates themselves I think talked about their beliefs and their vision for America.

The president-elect I think has been very explicit what he cares about and what he believes in. And so it’s not in my hands now, it’s up to them.

QUESTION: what about long term about the Electoral College?

OBAMA: Long term with respect to the Electoral College, the Electoral College is a vestige, it’s a carry-over from an earlier vision of how our federal government was going to work that put a lot of premium on states, and it used to be that the Senate was not elected directly, it was through state legislatures. And it’s the same type of thinking that gives Wyoming two senators and — with about half a million people and California with 33 million get the same two.

So there’s — there are some structures in our political system as envisioned by the founders that sometimes are going to disadvantage Democrats, but the truth of the matter is is that if we have a strong message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about, typically, the popular vote and the electoral college vote will align.

And I guess — I guess part of my overall message here as I leave for the holidays is that if we look for one explanation or one silver bullet or one easy fix for our politics, then we’re probably going to be disappointed. There are just a lot of factors in what’s happened, not just over the last few months, but over the last decade that has made both politics and governance more challenging. And I think everybody’s raised legitimate questions and legitimate concerns.

I do hope that we all just take some time, take a breath, that’s certainly what I’m going to advise Democrats, to just reflect a little bit more about how can we — how can we get to a place where people are focused on working together based on at least some common set of facts? How can we have a conversation about policy that doesn’t demonize each another? How can we channel what I think is the basic decency and goodness of the American people so it reflects itself in our politics, as opposed to it being so polarized and so nasty that in some cases, you have voters and unelected officials who have more confidence and faith in a foreign adversary than they have in their neighbors?

And those go to some bigger issues. How is it that we have some voters or some elected officials who think that Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiative and school nutrition program is a greater threat to democracy than, you know, our government going after the press if they’re issuing a story they don’t like? I mean, that’s — that’s an issue that I think, you know, we’ve got to — we’ve got to wrestle with. And we will.

People have asked me how you feel after the election and so forth and I say well, look, this is a clarifying moment. It’s a useful reminder that voting counts, politics counts. What the president- elect is going to be doing is gonna be very different than what I was doing and I think people will be able to compare and contrast and make judgments about what worked for the American people. And I hope that building off the progress we’ve made, that what the president-elect is proposing works.

What I can say with confidence is that what we’ve done works. That I can prove. I can show you where we were in 2008 and I can show you where we are now. And you can’t argue that we are not better off, we are.

And for that, I thank the American people and then more importantly I thank — well, not importantly, as importantly — I was going to say Josh Earnest…

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: … for doing such a great job. For that, I thank the American people, I thank the men and women in uniform who serve. I haven’t gotten to the point yet where I’ve been overly sentimental. I will tell you that when I was doing my last Christmas party photo — I know many of you have participated in these, they’re pretty long.

Right at the end of the line, the President’s Marine Corps Band comes in, those who have been performing. And I take a picture with them. And that was the last time that I was going to take a picture with my Marine Corps Band after an event. And I got a little choked up.

Now I was in front of marines so I had to like tamp it down. But it was just one small example of all of the people who have contributed to our success. I am responsible for where we’ve screwed up, the successes are widely shared with all of the amazing people who have been part of this administration.

OK? Thank you, everybody. Mele Kalikimaka!

 

Political Transcripts November 21, 2016: President-elect Donald Trump outlines his first 100 days

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION:

A Message from President-Elect Donald J. Trump

Source: Transition2017

“The President-elect shares an update on the Presidential Transition, an outline of some of his policy plans for the first 100 days, and his day one executive actions.”

Full Text Political Transcripts September 20, 2016: President Obama’s Address to the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & 114TH CONGRESS:

Address by President Obama to the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly

Source: WH, 9-20-16

The United Nations
New York, New York

10:29 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Mr. President; Mr. Secretary General; fellow delegates; ladies and gentlemen:  As I address this hall as President for the final time, let me recount the progress that we’ve made these last eight years.

From the depths of the greatest financial crisis of our time, we coordinated our response to avoid further catastrophe and return the global economy to growth.  We’ve taken away terrorist safe havens, strengthened the nonproliferation regime, resolved the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy.  We opened relations with Cuba, helped Colombia end Latin America’s longest war, and we welcome a democratically elected leader of Myanmar to this Assembly.  Our assistance is helping people feed themselves, care for the sick, power communities across Africa, and promote models of development rather than dependence.  And we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative, while establishing a framework to protect our planet from the ravages of climate change.

This is important work.  It has made a real difference in the lives of our people.  And it could not have happened had we not worked together.  And yet, around the globe we are seeing the same forces of global integration that have made us interdependent also expose deep fault lines in the existing international order.

We see it in the headlines every day.  Around the world, refugees flow across borders in flight from brutal conflict.  Financial disruptions continue to weigh upon our workers and entire communities.  Across vast swaths of the Middle East, basic security, basic order has broken down.  We see too many governments muzzling journalists, and quashing dissent, and censoring the flow of information.  Terrorist networks use social media to prey upon the minds of our youth, endangering open societies and spurring anger against innocent immigrants and Muslims.  Powerful nations contest the constraints placed on them by international law.

This is the paradox that defines our world today.  A quarter century after the end of the Cold War, the world is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before, and yet our societies are filled with uncertainty, and unease, and strife.  Despite enormous progress, as people lose trust in institutions, governing becomes more difficult and tensions between nations become more quick to surface.

And so I believe that at this moment we all face a choice. We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration.  Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion.

I want to suggest to you today that we must go forward, and not backward.  I believe that as imperfect as they are, the principles of open markets and accountable governance, of democracy and human rights and international law that we have forged remain the firmest foundation for human progress in this century.  I make this argument not based on theory or ideology, but on facts — facts that all too often, we forget in the immediacy of current events.

Here’s the most important fact:  The integration of our global economy has made life better for billions of men, women and children.  Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent.  That’s unprecedented.  And it’s not an abstraction.  It means children have enough to eat; mothers don’t die in childbirth.

Meanwhile, cracking the genetic code promises to cure diseases that have plagued us for centuries.  The Internet can deliver the entirety of human knowledge to a young girl in a remote village on a single hand-held device.  In medicine and in manufacturing, in education and communications, we’re experiencing a transformation of how human beings live on a scale that recalls the revolutions in agriculture and industry.  And as a result, a person born today is more likely to be healthy, to live longer, and to have access to opportunity than at any time in human history.

Moreover, the collapse of colonialism and communism has allowed more people than ever before to live with the freedom to choose their leaders.  Despite the real and troubling areas where freedom appears in retreat, the fact remains that the number of democracies around the world has nearly doubled in the last 25 years.

In remote corners of the world, citizens are demanding respect for the dignity of all people no matter their gender, or race, or religion, or disability, or sexual orientation, and those who deny others dignity are subject to public reproach.  An explosion of social media has given ordinary people more ways to express themselves, and has raised people’s expectations for those of us in power.  Indeed, our international order has been so successful that we take it as a given that great powers no longer fight world wars; that the end of the Cold War lifted the shadow of nuclear Armageddon; that the battlefields of Europe have been replaced by peaceful union; that China and India remain on a path of remarkable growth.

I say all this not to whitewash the challenges we face, or to suggest complacency.  Rather, I believe that we need to acknowledge these achievements in order to summon the confidence to carry this progress forward and to make sure that we do not abandon those very things that have delivered this progress.

In order to move forward, though, we do have to acknowledge that the existing path to global integration requires a course correction.  As too often, those trumpeting the benefits of globalization have ignored inequality within and among nations; have ignored the enduring appeal of ethnic and sectarian identities; have left international institutions ill-equipped, underfunded, under-resourced, in order to handle transnational challenges.

And as these real problems have been neglected, alternative visions of the world have pressed forward both in the wealthiest countries and in the poorest:  Religious fundamentalism; the politics of ethnicity, or tribe, or sect; aggressive nationalism; a crude populism — sometimes from the far left, but more often from the far right — which seeks to restore what they believe was a better, simpler age free of outside contamination.

We cannot dismiss these visions.  They are powerful.  They reflect dissatisfaction among too many of our citizens.  I do not believe those visions can deliver security or prosperity over the long term, but I do believe that these visions fail to recognize, at a very basic level, our common humanity.  Moreover, I believe that the acceleration of travel and technology and telecommunications — together with a global economy that depends on a global supply chain — makes it self-defeating ultimately for those who seek to reverse this progress.  Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself.

So the answer cannot be a simple rejection of global integration.  Instead, we must work together to make sure the benefits of such integration are broadly shared, and that the disruptions — economic, political, and cultural — that are caused by integration are squarely addressed.  This is not the place for a detailed policy blueprint, but let me offer in broad strokes those areas where I believe we must do better together.

It starts with making the global economy work better for all people and not just for those at the top.  While open markets, capitalism have raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress and technology has also weakened the position of workers and their ability to secure a decent wage.  In advanced economies like my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared.  Often, those who benefit most from globalization have used their political power to further undermine the position of workers.

In developing countries, labor organizations have often been suppressed, and the growth of the middle class has been held back by corruption and underinvestment.  Mercantilist policies pursued by governments with export-driven models threaten to undermine the consensus that underpins global trade.  And meanwhile, global capital is too often unaccountable — nearly $8 trillion stashed away in tax havens, a shadow banking system that grows beyond the reach of effective oversight.

A world in which one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99 percent will never be stable.  I understand that the gaps between rich and poor are not new, but just as the child in a slum today can see the skyscraper nearby, technology now allows any person with a smartphone to see how the most privileged among us live and the contrast between their own lives and others.  Expectations rise, then, faster than governments can deliver, and a pervasive sense of injustice undermine people’s faith in the system.

So how do we fix this imbalance?  We cannot unwind integration any more than we can stuff technology back into a box.  Nor can we look to failed models of the past.  If we start resorting to trade wars, market distorting subsidies, beggar thy neighbor policies, an overreliance on natural resources instead of innovation — these approaches will make us poorer, collectively, and they are more like to lead to conflict.  And the stark contrast between, say, the success of the Republic of Korea and the wasteland of North Korea shows that central, planned control of the economy is a dead end.

But I do believe there’s another path — one that fuels growth and innovation, and offers the clearest route to individual opportunity and national success.  It does not require succumbing to a soulless capitalism that benefits only the few, but rather recognizes that economies are more successful when we close the gap between rich and poor, and growth is broadly based. And that means respecting the rights of workers so they can organize into independent unions and earn a living wage.  It means investing in our people — their skills, their education, their capacity to take an idea and turn it into a business.  It means strengthening the safety net that protects our people from hardship and allows them to take more risks — to look for a new job, or start a new venture.

These are the policies that I’ve pursued here in the United States, and with clear results.  American businesses have created now 15 million new jobs.  After the recession, the top one percent of Americans were capturing more than 90 percent of income growth.  But today, that’s down to about half.  Last year, poverty in this country fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years.  And with further investment in infrastructure and early childhood education and basic research, I’m confident that such progress will continue.

So just as I’ve pursued these measures here at home, so has the United States worked with many nations to curb the excesses of capitalism — not to punish wealth, but to prevent repeated crises that can destroy it.  That’s why we’ve worked with other nations to create higher and clearer standards for banking and taxation — because a society that asks less of oligarchs than ordinary citizens will rot from within.  That’s why we’ve pushed for transparency and cooperation in rooting out corruption, and tracking illicit dollars, because markets create more jobs when they’re fueled by hard work, and not the capacity to extort a bribe.  That’s why we’ve worked to reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise environmental standards, as we’ve done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so that the benefits are more broadly shared.

And just as we benefit by combatting inequality within our countries, I believe advanced economies still need to do more to close the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe.  This is difficult politically.  It’s difficult to spend on foreign assistance.  But I do not believe this is charity.  For the small fraction of what we spent at war in Iraq we could support institutions so that fragile states don’t collapse in the first place, and invest in emerging economies that become markets for our goods.  It’s not just the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do.

And that’s why we need to follow through on our efforts to combat climate change.  If we don’t act boldly, the bill that could come due will be mass migrations, and cities submerged and nations displaced, and food supplies decimated, and conflicts born of despair.  The Paris Agreement gives us a framework to act, but only if we scale up our ambition.  And there must be a sense of urgency about bringing the agreement into force, and helping poorer countries leapfrog destructive forms of energy.

So, for the wealthiest countries, a Green Climate Fund should only be the beginning.  We need to invest in research and provide market incentives to develop new technologies, and then make these technologies accessible and affordable for poorer countries.  And only then can we continue lifting all people up from poverty without condemning our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair.

So we need new models for the global marketplace, models that are inclusive and sustainable.  And in the same way, we need models of governance that are inclusive and accountable to ordinary people.

I recognize not every country in this hall is going to follow the same model of governance.  I do not think that America can — or should — impose our system of government on other countries.  But there appears to be growing contest between authoritarianism and liberalism right now.  And I want everybody to understand, I am not neutral in that contest.  I believe in a liberal political order — an order built not just through elections and representative government, but also through respect for human rights and civil society, and independent judiciaries and the rule of law.

I know that some countries, which now recognize the power of free markets, still reject the model of free societies.  And perhaps those of us who have been promoting democracy feel somewhat discouraged since the end of the Cold War, because we’ve learned that liberal democracy will not just wash across the globe in a single wave.  It turns out building accountable institutions is hard work — the work of generations.  The gains are often fragile.  Sometimes we take one step forward and then two steps back.  In countries held together by borders drawn by colonial powers, with ethnic enclaves and tribal divisions, politics and elections can sometimes appear to be a zero-sum game.  And so, given the difficulty in forging true democracy in the face of these pressures, it’s no surprise that some argue the future favors the strongman, a top-down model, rather than strong, democratic institutions.

But I believe this thinking is wrong.  I believe the road of true democracy remains the better path.  I believe that in the 21st century, economies can only grow to a certain point until they need to open up — because entrepreneurs need to access information in order to invent; young people need a global education in order to thrive; independent media needs to check the abuses of power.  Without this evolution, ultimately expectations of people will not be met; suppression and stagnation will set in.  And history shows that strongmen are then left with two paths — permanent crackdown, which sparks strife at home, or scapegoating enemies abroad, which can lead to war.

Now, I will admit, my belief that governments serve the individual, and not the other way around, is shaped by America’s story.  Our nation began with a promise of freedom that applied only to the few.  But because of our democratic Constitution, because of our Bill of Rights, because of our ideals, ordinary people were able to organize, and march, and protest, and ultimately, those ideals won out — opened doors for women and minorities and workers in ways that made our economy more productive and turned our diversity into a strength; that gave innovators the chance to transform every area of human endeavor; that made it possible for someone like me to be elected President of the United States.

So, yes, my views are shaped by the specific experiences of America, but I do not think this story is unique to America.  Look at the transformation that’s taken place in countries as different as Japan and Chile, Indonesia, Botswana.  The countries that have succeeded are ones in which people feel they have a stake.

In Europe, the progress of those countries in the former Soviet bloc that embraced democracy stand in clear contrast to those that did not.  After all, the people of Ukraine did not take to the streets because of some plot imposed from abroad.  They took to the streets because their leadership was for sale and they had no recourse.  They demanded change because they saw life get better for people in the Baltics and in Poland, societies that were more liberal, and democratic, and open than their own.

So those of us who believe in democracy, we need to speak out forcefully, because both the facts and history, I believe, are on our side.  That doesn’t mean democracies are without flaws.  It does mean that the cure for what ails our democracies is greater engagement by our citizens — not less.

Yes, in America, there is too much money in politics; too much entrenched partisanship; too little participation by citizens, in part because of a patchwork of laws that makes it harder to vote.  In Europe, a well-intentioned Brussels often became too isolated from the normal push and pull of national politics.  Too often, in capitals, decision-makers have forgotten that democracy needs to be driven by civic engagement from the bottom up, not governance by experts from the top down.  And so these are real problems, and as leaders of democratic governments make the case for democracy abroad, we better strive harder to set a better example at home.

Moreover, every country will organize its government informed by centuries of history, and the circumstances of geography, and the deeply held beliefs of its people.  So I recognize a traditional society may value unity and cohesion more than a diverse country like my own, which was founded upon what, at the time, was a radical idea — the idea of the liberty of individual human beings endowed with certain God-given rights.  But that does not mean that ordinary people in Asia, or Africa, or the Middle East somehow prefer arbitrary rule that denies them a voice in the decisions that can shape their lives.  I believe that spirit is universal.  And if any of you doubt the universality of that desire, listen to the voices of young people everywhere who call out for freedom, and dignity, and the opportunity to control their own lives.

This leads me to the third thing we need to do:  We must reject any forms of fundamentalism, or racism, or a belief in ethnic superiority that makes our traditional identities irreconcilable with modernity.  Instead we need to embrace the tolerance that results from respect of all human beings.

It’s a truism that global integration has led to a collision of cultures; trade, migration, the Internet, all these things can challenge and unsettle our most cherished identities.  We see liberal societies express opposition when women choose to cover themselves.  We see protests responding to Western newspaper cartoons that caricature the Prophet Muhammad.  In a world that left the age of empire behind, we see Russia attempting to recover lost glory through force.  Asian powers debate competing claims of history.  And in Europe and the United States, you see people wrestle with concerns about immigration and changing demographics, and suggesting that somehow people who look different are corrupting the character of our countries.

Now, there’s no easy answer for resolving all these social forces, and we must respect the meaning that people draw from their own traditions — from their religion, from their ethnicity, from their sense of nationhood.  But I do not believe progress is possible if our desire to preserve our identities gives way to an impulse to dehumanize or dominate another group. If our religion leads us to persecute those of another faith, if we jail or beat people who are gay, if our traditions lead us to prevent girls from going to school, if we discriminate on the basis of race or tribe or ethnicity, then the fragile bonds of civilization will fray.  The world is too small, we are too packed together, for us to be able to resort to those old ways of thinking.

We see this mindset in too many parts of the Middle East.  There, so much of the collapse in order has been fueled because leaders sought legitimacy not because of policies or programs but by resorting to persecuting political opposition, or demonizing other religious sects, by narrowing the public space to the mosque, where in too many places perversions of a great faith were tolerated.  These forces built up for years, and are now at work helping to fuel both Syria’s tragic civil war and the mindless, medieval menace of ISIL.

The mindset of sectarianism, and extremism, and bloodletting, and retribution that has been taking place will not be quickly reversed.  And if we are honest, we understand that no external power is going to be able to force different religious communities or ethnic communities to co-exist for long.  But I do believe we have to be honest about the nature of these conflicts, and our international community must continue to work with those who seek to build rather than to destroy.

And there is a military component to that.  It means being united and relentless in destroying networks like ISIL, which show no respect for human life.  But it also means that in a place like Syria, where there’s no ultimate military victory to be won, we’re going to have to pursue the hard work of diplomacy that aims to stop the violence, and deliver aid to those in need, and support those who pursue a political settlement and can see those who are not like themselves as worthy of dignity and respect.

Across the region’s conflicts, we have to insist that all parties recognize a common humanity and that nations end proxy wars that fuel disorder.  Because until basic questions are answered about how communities co-exist, the embers of extremism will continue to burn, countless human beings will suffer — most of all in that region — but extremism will continue to be exported overseas.  And the world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies.

And what is true in the Middle East is true for all of us.  Surely, religious traditions can be honored and upheld while teaching young people science and math, rather than intolerance. Surely, we can sustain our unique traditions while giving women their full and rightful role in the politics and economics of a nation.  Surely, we can rally our nations to solidarity while recognizing equal treatment for all communities — whether it’s a religious minority in Myanmar, or an ethnic minority in Burundi, or a racial minority right here in the United States.  And surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land.  We all have to do better as leaders in tamping down, rather than encouraging, a notion of identity that leads us to diminish others.

And this leads me to the fourth and final thing we need to do, and that is sustain our commitment to international cooperation rooted in the rights and responsibilities of nations.

As President of the United States, I know that for most of human history, power has not been unipolar.  The end of the Cold War may have led too many to forget this truth.  I’ve noticed as President that at times, both America’s adversaries and some of our allies believe that all problems were either caused by Washington or could be solved by Washington — and perhaps too many in Washington believed that as well.  (Laughter.)  But I believe America has been a rare superpower in human history insofar as it has been willing to think beyond narrow self-interest; that while we’ve made our share of mistakes over these last 25 years — and I’ve acknowledged some — we have strived, sometimes at great sacrifice, to align better our actions with our ideals.  And as a consequence, I believe we have been a force for good.

We have secured allies.  We’ve acted to protect the vulnerable.  We supported human rights and welcomed scrutiny of our own actions.  We’ve bound our power to international laws and institutions.  When we’ve made mistakes, we’ve tried to acknowledge them.  We have worked to roll back poverty and hunger and disease beyond our borders, not just within our borders.

I’m proud of that.  But I also know that we can’t do this alone.  And I believe that if we’re to meet the challenges of this century, we are all going to have to do more to build up international capacity.  We cannot escape the prospect of nuclear war unless we all commit to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and pursuing a world without them.

When Iran agrees to accept constraints on its nuclear program that enhances global security and enhances Iran’s ability to work with other nations.  On the other hand, when North Korea tests a bomb that endangers all of us.  And any country that breaks this basic bargain must face consequences.  And those nations with these weapons, like the United States, have a unique responsibility to pursue the path of reducing our stockpiles, and reaffirming basic norms like the commitment to never test them again.

We can’t combat a disease like Zika that recognizes no borders — mosquitos don’t respect walls — unless we make permanent the same urgency that we brought to bear against Ebola — by strengthening our own systems of public health, by investing in cures and rolling back the root causes of disease, and helping poorer countries develop a public health infrastructure.

We can only eliminate extreme poverty if the sustainable development goals that we have set are more than words on paper. Human ingenuity now gives us the capacity to feed the hungry and give all of our children — including our girls — the education that is the foundation for opportunity in our world.  But we have to put our money where our mouths are.

And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding — to replace the ravages of war with cooperation — if powerful nations like my own accept constraints.  Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions.  But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action — not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term — enhances our security.  And I think that’s not just true for us.

If Russia continues to interfere in the affairs of its neighbors, it may be popular at home, it may fuel nationalist fervor for a time, but over time it is also going to diminish its stature and make its borders less secure.  In the South China Sea, a peaceful resolution of disputes offered by law will mean far greater stability than the militarization of a few rocks and reefs.

We are all stakeholders in this international system, and it calls upon all of us to invest in the success of institutions to which we belong.  And the good news is, is that many nations have shown what kind of progress is possible when we make those commitments.  Consider what we’ve accomplished here over the past few years.

Together, we mobilized some 50,000 additional troops for U.N. peacekeeping, making them nimble, better equipped, better prepared to deal with emergencies.  Together, we established an Open Government Partnership so that, increasingly, transparency empowers more and more people around the globe.  And together, now, we have to open our hearts and do more to help refugees who are desperate for a home.

We should all welcome the pledges of increased assistance that have been made at this General Assembly gathering.  I’ll be discussing that more this afternoon.  But we have to follow through, even when the politics are hard.  Because in the eyes of innocent men and women and children who, through no fault of their own, have had to flee everything that they know, everything that they love, we have to have the empathy to see ourselves.  We have to imagine what it would be like for our family, for our children, if the unspeakable happened to us.  And we should all understand that, ultimately, our world will be more secure if we are prepared to help those in need and the nations who are carrying the largest burden with respect to accommodating these refugees.

There are a lot of nations right now that are doing the right thing.  But many nations — particularly those blessed with wealth and the benefits of geography — that can do more to offer a hand, even if they also insist that refugees who come to our countries have to do more to adapt to the customs and conventions of the communities that are now providing them a home.

Let me conclude by saying that I recognize history tells a different story than the one that I’ve talked about here today.  There’s a much darker and more cynical view of history that we can adopt.  Human beings are too often motivated by greed and by power.  Big countries for most of history have pushed smaller ones around.  Tribes and ethnic groups and nation states have very often found it most convenient to define themselves by what they hate and not just those ideas that bind them together.

Time and again, human beings have believed that they finally arrived at a period of enlightenment only to repeat, then, cycles of conflict and suffering.  Perhaps that’s our fate.  We have to remember that the choices of individual human beings led to repeated world war.  But we also have to remember that the choices of individual human beings created a United Nations, so that a war like that would never happen again.  Each of us as leaders, each nation can choose to reject those who appeal to our worst impulses and embrace those who appeal to our best.  For we have shown that we can choose a better history.

Sitting in a prison cell, a young Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote that, “Human progress never rolls on the wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God.”  And during the course of these eight years, as I’ve traveled to many of your nations, I have seen that spirit in our young people, who are more educated and more tolerant, and more inclusive and more diverse, and more creative than our generation; who are more empathetic and compassionate towards their fellow human beings than previous generations.  And, yes, some of that comes with the idealism of youth.  But it also comes with young people’s access to information about other peoples and places — an understanding unique in human history that their future is bound with the fates of other human beings on the other side of the world.

I think of the thousands of health care workers from around the world who volunteered to fight Ebola.  I remember the young entrepreneurs I met who are now starting new businesses in Cuba, the parliamentarians who used to be just a few years ago political prisoners in Myanmar.  I think of the girls who have braved taunts or violence just to go to school in Afghanistan, and the university students who started programs online to reject the extremism of organizations like ISIL.  I draw strength from the young Americans — entrepreneurs, activists, soldiers, new citizens — who are remaking our nation once again, who are unconstrained by old habits and old conventions, and unencumbered by what is, but are instead ready to seize what ought to be.

My own family is a made up of the flesh and blood and traditions and cultures and faiths from a lot of different parts of the world — just as America has been built by immigrants from every shore.  And in my own life, in this country, and as President, I have learned that our identities do not have to be defined by putting someone else down, but can be enhanced by lifting somebody else up.  They don’t have to be defined in opposition to others, but rather by a belief in liberty and equality and justice and fairness.

And the embrace of these principles as universal doesn’t weaken my particular pride, my particular love for America — it strengthens it.  My belief that these ideals apply everywhere doesn’t lessen my commitment to help those who look like me, or pray as I do, or pledge allegiance to my flag.  But my faith in those principles does force me to expand my moral imagination and to recognize that I can best serve my own people, I can best look after my own daughters, by making sure that my actions seek what is right for all people and all children, and your daughters and your sons.

This is what I believe:  that all of us can be co-workers with God.  And our leadership, and our governments, and this United Nations should reflect this irreducible truth.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
11:17 A.M. EDT

Full Text Campaign Buzz 2016 August 31, 2016: GOP Nominee Donald Trump’s Press Conference with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Donald Trump’s Press Conference with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto

 

Full Text Campaign Buzz 2016 August 15, 2016: GOP Nominee Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech Transcript

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN:

Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech

Source: DonaldJTrump.com, 8-15-16

Thank you. It is great to be with you this afternoon.

Today we begin a conversation about how to Make America Safe Again.

In the 20th Century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and Communism.

Now, a different threat challenges our world: Radical Islamic Terrorism.

This summer, there has been an ISIS attack launched outside the war zones of the Middle East every 84 hours.

Here, in America, we have seen one brutal attack after another.

13 were murdered, and 38 wounded, in the assault on Ft. Hood.

The Boston Marathon Bombing wounded and maimed 264 people, and ultimately left five dead – including 2 police officers.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, five unarmed marines were shot and killed at a military recruiting center.

Last December, 14 innocent Americans were gunned down at an office party in San Bernardino, another 22 were injured.

In June, 49 Americans were executed at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, and another 53 were injured. It was the worst mass shooting in our history, and the worst attack on the LGTBQ community in our history.

In Europe, we have seen the same carnage and bloodshed inflicted upon our closest allies.

In January of 2015, a French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, was attacked for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Twelve were killed, including two police officers, and 11 were wounded. Two days later, four were murdered in a Jewish Deli.

In November of 2015, terrorists went on a shooting rampage in Paris that slaughtered 130 people, and wounded another 368. France is suffering gravely, and the tourism industry is being massively affected in a most negative way.

In March of this year, terrorists detonated a bomb in the Brussels airport, killing 32 and injuring 340.

This July, in the South of France, an Islamic terrorist turned his truck into an instrument of mass murder, plowing down and killing 85 men, women and children – and wounding another 308. Among the dead were 2 Americans – a Texas father, and his 11-year-old son.

A few weeks ago, in Germany, a refugee armed with an axe wounded five people in a gruesome train attack.

Only days ago, an ISIS killer invaded a Christian church in Normandy France, forced an 85-year-old priest to his knees, and slit his throat before his congregation.

Overseas, ISIS has carried out one unthinkable atrocity after another. Children slaughtered, girls sold into slavery, men and women burned alive.

Crucifixions, beheadings and drownings. Ethnic minorities targeted for mass execution. Holy sites desecrated. Christians driven from their homes and hunted for extermination. ISIS rounding-up what it calls the “nation of the cross” in a campaign of genocide. We cannot let this evil continue.

Nor can we let the hateful ideology of Radical Islam – its oppression of women, gays, children, and nonbelievers – be allowed to reside or spread within our own countries.

We will defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism, just as we have defeated every threat we have faced in every age before.

But we will not defeat it with closed eyes, or silenced voices.

Anyone who cannot name our enemy, is not fit to lead this country. Anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of Radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our President.

The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

Let’s look back at the Middle East at the very beginning of 2009, before the Obama-Clinton Administration took over.

Libya was stable.

Syria was under control.

Egypt was ruled by a secular President and an ally of the United States.

Iraq was experiencing a reduction in violence.

The group that would become what we now call ISIS was close to being extinguished.

Iran was being choked off by economic sanctions.

Fast-forward to today. What have the decisions of Obama-Clinton produced?

Libya is in ruins, our ambassador and three other brave Americans are dead, and ISIS has gained a new base of operations.

Syria is in the midst of a disastrous civil war. ISIS controls large portions of territory. A refugee crisis now threatens Europe and the United States.

In Egypt, terrorists have gained a foothold in the Sinai desert, near the Suez Canal, one of the most essential waterways in the world.

Iraq is in chaos, and ISIS is on the loose.

ISIS has spread across the Middle East, and into the West. In 2014, ISIS was operating in some 7 nations. Today they are fully operational in 18 countries with aspiring branches in 6 more, for a total of 24 – and many believe it is even more than that. The situation is likely worse than the public knows: a new Congressional report reveals that the Administration has downplayed the growth of ISIS, with 40% of analysts saying they had experienced efforts to manipulate their findings.

At the same time, ISIS is trying to infiltrate refugee flows into Europeand the United States.

Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, is now flush with $150 billion in cash released by the United States – plus another $400 million in ransom. Worst of all, the Nuclear deal puts Iran, the number one state sponsor of Radical Islamic Terrorism, on a path to nuclear weapons.

In short, the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has unleashed ISIS, destabilized the Middle East, and put the nation of Iran – which chants ‘Death to America’ – in a dominant position of regional power and, in fact, aspiring to be a dominant world power.

It all began in 2009 with what has become known as President Obama’s global ‘Apology Tour.’

In a series of speeches, President Obama described America as “arrogant,” “dismissive” “derisive” and a “colonial power.” He informed other countries that he would be speaking up about America’s “past errors.” He pledged that we would no longer be a “senior partner,” that “sought to dictate our terms.” He lectured CIA officers of the need to acknowledge their mistakes, and described Guantanamo Bay as a “rallying cry for our enemies.”

Perhaps no speech was more misguided than President Obama’s speech to the Muslim World delivered in Cairo, Egypt, in 2009.

In winning the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan repeatedly touted the superiority of freedom over communism, and called the USSR the Evil Empire.

Yet, when President Obama delivered his address in Cairo, no such moral courage could be found. Instead of condemning the oppression of women and gays in many Muslim nations, and the systematic violations of human rights, or the financing of global terrorism, President Obama tried to draw an equivalency between our human rights record and theirs.

His naïve words were followed by even more naïve actions.

The failure to establish a new Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, and the election-driven timetable for withdrawal, surrendered our gains in that country and led directly to the rise of ISIS.

The failures in Iraq were compounded by Hillary Clinton’s disaster in Libya. President Obama has since said he regards Libya as his worst mistake. According to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the invasion of Libya was nearly a split decision, but Hillary Clinton’s forceful advocacy for the intervention was the deciding factor.

With one episode of bad judgment after another, Hillary Clinton’s policies launched ISIS onto the world.

Yet, as she threw the Middle East into violent turmoil, things turned out well for her. The Clintons made almost $60 million in gross income while she was Secretary of State.

Incident after incident proves again and again: Hillary Clinton lacks the judgement, the temperament and the moral character to lead this nation. Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS, and all the many adversaries we face – not only in terrorism, but in trade and every other challenge we must confront to turn this country around.

It is time for a new approach.

Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure. We have created the vacuums that allow terrorists to grow and thrive.

I was an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning – a major difference between me and my opponent.

Though I was a private citizen, whose personal opinions on such matters was not sought, I nonetheless publicly expressed my private doubts about the invasion. Three months before the invasion I said, in an interview with Neil Cavuto, to whom I offer my best wishes for a speedy recovery, that “perhaps [we] shouldn’t be doing it yet,” and that “the economy is a much bigger problem.”

In August of 2004, very early in the conflict, I made a detailed statement to Esquire magazine. Here is the quote in full:

“Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have.

“What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing.”

So I have been clear for a long time that we should not have gone in. But I have been just as clear in saying what a catastrophic mistake Hillary Clinton and President Obama made with the reckless way in which they pulled out.

After we had made those hard-fought sacrifices and gains, we should never have made such a sudden withdrawal – on a timetable advertised to our enemies. Al Qaeda in Iraq had been decimated, and Obama and Clinton gave it new life and allowed it to spread across the world.

By that same token, President Obama and Hillary Clinton should never have attempted to build a Democracy in Libya, to push for immediate regime change in Syria or to support the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt.

One more point on this: I have long said that we should have kept the oil in Iraq – another area where my judgement has been proven correct. According to CNN, ISIS made as much $500 million in oil sales in 2014 alone, fueling and funding its reign of terror. If we had controlled the oil, we could have prevented the rise of ISIS in Iraq – both by cutting off a major source of funding, and through the presence of U.S. forces necessary to safeguard the oil and other vital infrastructure. I was saying this constantly and to whoever would listen: keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil, I said – don’t let someone else get it.

If they had listened to me then, we would have had the economic benefits of the oil, which I wanted to use to help take care of the wounded soldiers and families of those who died – and thousands of lives would have been saved.

This proposal, by its very nature, would have left soldiers in place to guard our assets. In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils. Instead, all we got from Iraq – and our adventures in the Middle East – was death, destruction and tremendous financial loss.

But it is time to put the mistakes of the past behind us, and chart a new course.

If I become President, the era of nation-building will be ended. Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam.

All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which shares this goal will be our ally. We cannot always choose our friends, but we can never fail to recognize our enemies.

As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished.

We will also work closely with NATO on this new mission. I had previously said that NATO was obsolete because it failed to deal adequately with terrorism; since my comments they have changed their policy and now have a new division focused on terror threats.

I also believe that we could find common ground with Russia in the fight against ISIS. They too have much at stake in the outcome in Syria, and have had their own battles with Islamic terrorism.

My Administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cutoff their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting. We cannot allow the internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy – we must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has risked so many lives with her careless handling of sensitive information, my Administration will not telegraph exact military plans to the enemy. I have often said that General MacArthur and General Patton would be in a state of shock if they were alive today to see the way President Obama and Hillary Clinton try to recklessly announce their every move before it happens – like they did in Iraq – so that the enemy can prepare and adapt.

The fight will not be limited to ISIS. We will decimate Al Qaeda, and we will seek to starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah. We can use existing UN Security Council resolutions to apply new sanctions.

Military, cyber and financial warfare will all be essential in dismantling Islamic terrorism.

But we must use ideological warfare as well.

Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam.

While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation donations from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by prison or death, my Administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith.

Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.

This includes speaking out against the horrible practice of honor killings, where women are murdered by their relatives for dressing, marrying or acting in a way that violates fundamentalist teachings.

Over 1,000 Pakistani girls are estimated to be the victims of honor killings by their relatives each year. Recently, a prominent Pakistani social media star was strangled to death by her brother on the charge of dishonoring the family. In his confession, the brother took pride in the murder and said: “Girls are born to stay home and follow traditions.”

Shockingly, this is a practice that has reached our own shores.

One such case involves an Iraqi immigrant who was sentenced to 34 years in jail for running over his own daughter claiming she had become “too Westernized.”

To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must also speak out forcefully against a hateful ideology that provides the breeding ground for violence and terrorism to grow.

A new immigration policy is needed as well.

The common thread linking the major Islamic terrorist attacks that have recently occurred on our soil – 9/11, the Ft. Hood shooting, the Boston Bombing, the San Bernardino attack, the Orlando attack – is that they have involved immigrants or the children of immigrants.

Clearly, new screening procedures are needed.

A review by the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee has identified 380 foreign-born individuals charged with terrorism or terrorismrelated offenses between 9/11 and 2014, and many more since then.

We also know that ISIS recruits refugees after their entrance into the country – as we have seen with the Somali refugee population in Minnesota.

Beyond terrorism, as we have seen in France, foreign populations have brought their anti-Semitic attitudes with them.

Pew polling shows that in many of the countries from which we draw large numbers of immigrants, extreme views about religion – such as the death penalty for those who leave the faith – are commonplace.

A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.

In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.

Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.

Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society – should be issued visas.

To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.

As soon as I take office, I will ask the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to identify a list of regions where adequate screening cannot take place. We will stop processing visas from those areas until such time as it is deemed safe to resume based on new circumstances or new procedures.

The size of current immigration flows are simply too large to perform adequate screening.

We admit about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year. Beyond that, we admit hundreds of thousands of temporary workers and visitors from the same regions. If we don’t control the numbers, we can’t perform adequate screening.

By contrast, my opponent wants to increase the flow of Syrian refugees by 550% percent.

The United States Senate Subcommittee on Immigration estimates that Hillary Clinton’s plan would mean roughly 620,000 refugees from all current refugee-sending nations in her first term, assuming no cuts to other refugee programs. This would be additional to all other nonrefugee immigration.

The Subcommittee estimates her plan would impose a lifetime cost of roughly $400 billion when you include the costs of healthcare, welfare, housing, schooling, and all other entitlement benefits that are excluded from the State Department’s placement figures.

In short, Hillary Clinton wants to be America’s Angela Merkel, and you know what a disaster this massive immigration has been to Germany and the people of Germany – crime has risen to levels that no one thought would they would ever see. We have enough problems in our country, we don’t need another one.

Finally, we will need to restore common sense to our security procedures.

Another common feature of the past attacks that have occurred on our soil is that warning signs were ignored.

The 9/11 hijackers had fraud all over their visa applications.

The Russians warned us about the Boston Bombers, here on political asylum, and the attackers were even twice interviewed by the FBI.

The female San Bernardino shooter, here on a fiancé visa from Saudi Arabia, wrote of her support for Jihad online. A neighbor saw suspicious behavior but didn’t warn authorities, because said they didn’t want to be accused of racially profiling – now many are dead and gravely wounded.

The shooter in Orlando reportedly celebrated in his classroom after 9/11. . He too was interviewed by the FBI. His father, a native of Afghanistan, supported the oppressive Taliban regime, and expressed anti-American views – and by the way, was just seen sitting behind Hillary Clinton with a big smile on his face all the way through her speech. He obviously liked what she had to say.

The Ft. Hood Shooter delivered a presentation to a room full of mental health experts before the attacks in which he threw out one red flag after another. He even proclaimed that “we love death more than you love life!”

These warnings signs were ignored because political correctness has replaced common sense in our society.

That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.

The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.

This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners.

We will also keep open Guantanamo Bay, and place a renewed emphasis on human intelligence. Drone strikes will remain part of our strategy, but we will also seek to capture high-value targets to gain needed information to dismantle their organizations. Foreign combatants will be tried in military commissions.

Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country.

To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one.

Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home.

To Make America Safe Again, We Must Work Together Again.

Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international consensus. That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic terrorism.

But just like we couldn’t defeat communism without acknowledging that communism exists – or explaining its evils – we can’t defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism unless we do the same.

This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own way of life – and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.

Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society.

Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion. Our system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the world and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.

This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together as a country.

Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country. It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common – not what pulls us apart.

This is my pledge to the American people: as your President I will be your greatest champion. I will fight to ensure that every American is treated equally, protected equally, and honored equally. We will reject bigotry and oppression in all its forms, and seek a new future built on our common culture and values as one American people.

Only this way, will we make America Great Again and Safe Again – For Everyone.

Thank you.

%d bloggers like this: