Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan En Route Madrid, Spain
Aboard Air Force One
En Route Madrid, Spain
2:10 P.M. CEST
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, well, welcome to our second leg of the trip, heading to Spain, Madrid, specifically. Jake Sullivan here, our National Security Advisor — the President’s National Security Advisor — is going to give us a little bit lay of the land for NATO and answer any of your questions.
Go ahead, Jake.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thanks, everybody. We’re obviously on our way to Madrid for what we expect will be a historic NATO Summit at a time of war in Europe.
NATO today is more united, determined, and purposeful than it’s been at any point in modern memory. And that’s in no small part because of the intense diplomacy and leadership that President Biden has invested over the course of the past few months, including hosting a virtual NATO Summit immediately after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February and then calling for an emergency summit in Brussels a month later.
So, NATO leaders will now have had three opportunities since the start of the war to get together, once virtually and now twice in person.
And, obviously, Ukraine will be top of mind with Russia’s ongoing brutality most recently on display with this gruesome and horrific attack on the shopping center yesterday.
And then, NATO Allies will have the opportunity to talk about capabilities and other forms of military assistance they’ll be providing to Ukraine on an ongoing basis in the coming days and months. And they’ll also have an opportunity to reaffirm their determination to remain united for as long as it takes to ensure a sovereign and independent Ukraine and that Russia pays a severe price for its wanton aggression against Ukraine.
More broadly, this summit will provide an opportunity to set the strategic direction for the Alliance for the coming years. And one of the things that will be a significant outcome of the summit will be a new Strategic Concept. The last Strategic Concept was agreed among Allies in 2010, 12 years ago. So this is the first NATO Summit to produce a new Strategic Concept since then.
That Strategic Concept described Russia as a strategic partner and did not refer to China.
This Strategic Concept will describe in stark terms the threat that Russia poses and the way in which it has shattered peace in Europe. It will speak very directly and in a clear-eyed way to the multifaceted challenge posed by the People’s Republic of China. And it will also address modern and emerging threats, cyber and emerging technologies, hybrid warfare, the growing national security implications of climate change, and of course, the evolving threat of terrorism, which has changed over the course of the 20 years since the Alliance went into Afghanistan back in 2001.
In addition to the Strategic Concept, which will be agreed and adopted by leaders, the Alliance will also agree on specific targets for increased common funding for NATO, for its various budgets, to ensure that all of the strategic lines of effort that are captured in that Strategic Concept are fully resourced and that NATO has the funding that is required for it to be able to actually carry out its activities.
One note on that: In addition to the deliverable of common funding at the summit, what will be on display is a marked increase in national contributions by countries to the point where we anticipate, at this summit, you will see that a strong majority of NATO Allies will be either at the 2 percent Wales benchmark or on track to meet it by 2024, which is a — just over the course of the past 18 months, a substantial shift in the intensity and commitment of NATO Allies in terms of putting their money where their mouth is.
Germany, obviously, made a historic announcement earlier this year; other countries have followed suit. And we’re seeing a real commitment across the board for countries to actually make the contributions to national capabilities necessary for the Alliance to be very strong.
The other area where we expect to see a significant, indeed historic, set of deliverables is on the issue of force posture. The President said before the war started that if Putin invaded Ukraine, the United States and NATO would enhance its force posture on the eastern flank, not just for the duration of the crisis, but to address the long-term change in the strategic reality that that would present.
And in this summit, you will see the Alliance follow through on that commitment and the United States follow through on that commitment. You’ll see a number of countries making commitments to increase their defense contributions to the eastern flank of the Alliance, with a special emphasis on the Balkan — the Baltics, but also other eastern flank allies as well.
And the United States will be making specific announcements tomorrow on land, sea, and air of additional force posture commitments over the long term, beyond the duration of this crisis, however long it goes on.
One of those announcements, which the President will lay out today when he meets with the Spanish President, will be an increase in the number of destroyers based at Rota, Spain, from four to six destroyers. Those will help increase the United States’ and NATO’s maritime presence and all the relevant maritime domains in the Euro-Atlantic area. But that will be just the first of several specific announcements, the rest of which we will lay out for you all tomorrow, on the first day of the NATO Summit.
And we think by the end of the summit, what you will see is a more robust, more effective, more combat-credible, more capable, and more determined force posture to take account of a more acute and aggravated Russian threat, not just because of what they’ve done in Ukraine, but also because of the way in which they have changed their posture vis-à-vis Belarus, which has an impact on many of our Allies, especially our Baltic Allies.
So we’ll go into more specifics on that set of announcements tomorrow. But that, we believe, will be a very important part of the outcome of this summit.
Final thing to put on the table is: In addition to the meeting of 30 leaders tomorrow morning — the 30 Allies — there will be an afternoon session with partners, and it will display the strong partnership that Finland and Sweden have already shown as NATO partners. But Allies, including the United States, will have the chance to lift up and lend their voice to — their voice of support to Finland and Sweden joining the Alliance. And we will continue to work with Turkey to address their concerns so that Finland and Sweden can ultimately become members of NATO and help contribute in an even more direct way to the security of the Euro-Atlantic area and to the NATO Alliance.
We will also have four Asia Pacific partners for the first time ever at a NATO summit. This is consistent with President Biden’s very strong view and central premise that the linkage in security between the Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic is only deepening. And so, the ties between allies in the two theaters have to deepen as well, not because NATO is going to go be fighting wars in the Pacific but because there is an interconnection between the robustness and vitality of our Asia-Pacific alliances and our Euro-Atlantic alliances. And so Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand will all be present.
The President, tomorrow, will have the opportunity to host a trilateral meeting with the President of Korea and the Prime Minister of Japan. This will be the first trilateral leaders-level meeting that we’ve had in some time among the leaders of these three countries. And it will be mainly focused on the continuing threat from the DPRK, particularly after an extended period of intense testing and other provocative activities that the — that the North Koreans have undertaken.
But in the session more broadly, he’ll have the opportunity to talk with our Indo-Pacific partners and the NATO Alliance about the China challenge and the ways in which it increasingly is a relevant factor for the NATO Alliance, as will be reflected in the Strategic Concept.
So I’ll stop there, and happy to take your questions.
Q Jake, just on NATO accession: President Erdoğan said that the President asked him for a meeting either tonight or tomorrow. Are they going to have a — sort of a formal engagement? And does the President now see a direct role for the United States in brokering NATO accessions for Finland and Sweden? And are there U.S. inducements that could help sort of sweeten the deal or grease the wheels for Turkey here?
MR. SULLIVAN: The Secretary General of NATO has taken the lead — appropriately and correctly — in working with Finland and Sweden on the one hand and Turkey on the other hand to find a way forward that addresses Turkey’s concerns and ultimately delivers Finland and Sweden’s entry into the Alliance. We believe that is how it should be and how it will remain.
The United States is not going to supplant the Secretary General or take on a brokering role in this. Rather, we’re going to do what many other Allies have done, which is indicate publicly and privately that we believe it is in the interest of the Alliance to get this done. And we also believe that Finland and Sweden have taken significant steps forward in terms of addressing Turkey’s concerns. We also believe and are confident that, ultimately, they will become members of the Alliance and that Turkey’s concerns will be fully addressed.
In terms of a bilateral meeting: We do expect, at some point tomorrow, President Erdoğan and President Biden have the chance to talk. What the modalities of that will be precisely are still being worked out. There’s not a fixed time or — or framework for the meeting, but they’ll have a chance to spend some time together to focus mainly on the strategic issues between the U.S. and Turkey and regional issues that are relevant to the two countries.
Of course, the issue of Finland and Sweden will come up but we don’t anticipate that that’s going to be the central focus of the President’s meeting with President Erdoğan.
Q Just on force posture: You mentioned persistent presence on the eastern flank. Is that going to be permanent basing? Because obviously there’s the NATO-Russia agreement from the late ‘90s. There’s agreement or commitment not to have permanent — permanent seems to be a bit of a (inaudible). Does the U.S. believe NATO is bound by that commitment to Russia from 25 years ago not to have permanent basing on its — on its borders?
MR. SULLIVAN: So, I am not going to get ahead of our announcement tomorrow. I’ll just say to you: Stay tuned in terms of the elements that will be part of that, which will involve additional forces on the eastern flank in a steady state. But to the particular question on rotational, permanent, et cetera: Stay tuned.
Q I have a question that is not about NATO but is relevant to this week. Brittney Griner faces a trial in Russia. What is the Biden administration doing to help her, to get her home? What’s the involvement? And do you have any update on how she’s doing?
MR. SULLIVAN: So, first, Brittney Griner is wrongfully detained, unjustly detained, and we have made that clear as an official determination of the U.S. government.
Second, the Russian government should release her and allow her to be returned and reunited with her family and come home safe and sound.
Third, both myself and Secretary Blinken have had the opportunity, just in the last few days, to speak with her — with her wife, Cherelle, and to convey our very deep sympathy, to convey that, you know, we just can’t even begin to imagine what the family must be going through, what Brittney — what Brittney must be going through.
The United States government is actively engaged in trying to resolve this case and get Brittney home. I’m not going to get into the details of what that means because these are sensitive matters. But I will tell you it has the fullest attention of the President and every senior member of his national security and diplomatic team. And we are actively working to find a resolution to this case, and will continue to do so without rest until we get Brittney safely home.
We also are trying to work actively to return all unjustly detained Americans and hostages being held overseas, whether that be in Iran or Afghanistan or Russia or Venezuela or China or elsewhere.
Q Jake, President Zelenskyy has made clear that he wants this war to draw to a close by the end of this year and believes that Ukraine, by the winter, can regain the territory it has currently lost by Russia. What does the U.S. think of that assessment?
MR. SULLIVAN: So we discussed this a little bit yesterday with the pool. And I don’t want to characterize President Zelenskyy’s words. I’ll let him speak for himself publicly on this matter.
I would just say that at the — at multiple levels — diplomatic, military to military, and President to President — we’ve had very deep and detailed discussions with the Ukrainians about their plans, about how they intend to proceed, both in terms of trying to halt Russian advances in the east and, ultimately, take back territory in the south and other places.
We’re communicating with them our analysis and assessment of those plans. We’re doing so privately. But, in general,
we believe that it is the Ukrainians who should be setting the course of the objectives in the war, and the United States and our Allies and partners who should be supplying them with the capabilities to be able to achieve those objectives.
That’s what we’re focused on, and that’s what we’re doing. And that will continue in the days and weeks ahead, including through the recent delivery of the HIMARS that we believe are now being used to good effect on the battlefield.
Q Jake, I wanted to ask you about the oil price cap discussions. The French pushed for that to be not just referencing Russia but also other countries in the world, including the United States? Can you say a word about that?
And can you —
MR. SULLIVAN: Sorry —
Q — so that —
MR. SULLIVAN: — including the United States?
Q Well, just to sort of have it be a broader initiative by the G7 rather than just focused solely on Russia.
And I wanted to ask you: You know, Prime Minister Modi was there. Were there discussions with him about India’s purchases of Russian oil? And — or do you see any kind of progress on that front?
MR. SULLIVAN: So, what ministers have now been tasked with by the leaders is to work on the specifics of how a price cap would actually work. One aspect of that, of course, is intensive engagement with key consuming countries. India is one of those countries. That engagement has begun. We have begun talks with India about how a price cap would work and what the implications of it would be. And I will leave it at that because, of course, those are ongoing diplomatic discussions.
Q Did the President speak with Prime Minister Modi about this issue specifically?
MR. SULLIVAN: The President did not speak with Prime Minister Modi about this yesterday, but at senior levels of the U.S. government, we had communications with the Indians yesterday. Before it goes to leader-to-leader level, we need to work through the details with their team at basically the Cabinet level, which is where it is right now. And then, if necessary, it can be elevated.
Q On the trilat that you’re doing tomorrow or — tomorrow, right? — Janet Yellen — Secretary Yellen is going to be going to Korea as well, as part of her Asia trip, including the G20. Are you — do you see any scope to be moving toward additional sanctions on North Korea? And would that even be effective in terms of their nuclear testing program?
MR. SULLIVAN: We actually have kept up a tempo of sanctions over the course of the 18 months. And we are constantly looking for new targets, especially because North Korea adjusts its methods of acquiring revenue constantly. And so we need to constantly be looking for ways to cut off those new sources of revenue. And that is something that will be a matter of real consultation between Secretary Yellen and the financial watchdogs in North Korea — in South Korea.
And the President will have the opportunity with President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida to discuss what we can do on the economic pressure side, particularly when it comes to depriving the North of hard currency that they use to fund their nuclear and missile programs.
Q Jake, on China and the Strategic Concept, can you talk a little bit more about the language, what it will say vis-à-vis Taiwan?
And then, the G7 leaders have just also had, you know, a large portion of their statement about China, saying they’re calling on Beijing to press Russia to stop their aggression. What exactly do the G7 leaders want? Do they want more public pressure? Do they want anything public? What have you guys agreed on to have Xi Jinping weigh in there?
MR. SULLIVAN: So, first, the — for us, the number-one priority with respect to China, when it comes to the war in Ukraine, is that China not become militarily supportive of Russia through the provision of equipment.
Number two is that they not engage in wholesale or systematic undermining or evasion of U.S. sanctions.
And on both of those, thus far, we have not seen China act in a way inconsistent with those two principles and certainly not at scale with respect to the economic relationship. So we want to see that continue.
In addition, as you noted, in the G7 statement, the leaders want to communicate to the PRC that the PRC, if it seeks to act as a responsible global player, should be using its relationship with and influence with Moscow. Whether that takes place publicly or privately is less relevant to us than that Xi Jinping communicate to Putin that what Russia is doing through this invasion and through this brutal war is having ripple effects through the world that is causing harm in the global south and elsewhere, and that the responsibility for that lies at the feet of the Russian government. And the fastest way to stop those negative ripple effects would be for Russia to stop the war.
So, yes, we believe that China cannot evade responsibility, given its relationship with Russia, for speaking more clearly to them. You know, from my perspective, that happening privately as opposed to publicly, it would be just fine if it produced a positive result.
Q Jake, there was a video that came out yesterday from the G7 where President Macron is talking to both President Biden and yourself about Saudi Arabia — the fact that they’re almost at maximum capacity and can’t produce that much more oil. Does that change the President’s thinking at all going into his trip next month? And did any other leaders approach him about his trip to Saudi Arabia?
MR. SULLIVAN: I’m not going to characterize President Macron’s comments yesterday.
And with respect to the question of his discussions with other leaders, he spoke with President Macron about the trip. I — he spoke with a couple of other leaders about the trip as well, not focused on or confined to the energy piece, but the broader strategic dynamic at play and the need, particularly in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for the United States, the G7, and the West to continue robust and effective engagement with our partners across the Middle East to include the GCC, as well as Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt, all of whom the President will see when he goes — when he goes to Saudi Arabia.
And then, of course, he talked about Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well with some of the leaders. But I’m not going to characterize President Macron’s comments or, you know, either the content of them or the — this particular notion about Saudi Arabia and its spare capacity.
Q On Caracas, there’s a report that, you know, we — or you’ve confirmed that senior administration officials went to Caracas. You mentioned freeing Americans there. What else can happen in terms of oil prices, particularly with an eye to the really bad financial inflation issues facing the United States? Are you asking for any kind of specific efforts or measures by Venezuela on the oil front?
MR. SULLIVAN: What we have said consistently is that we will only provide sanctions relief in return for concrete progress at the negotiating table. A few weeks ago, we gave a very specific license, and removed a few days ago a sanction, as part of an effort to get the talks in Mexico City back up and running effectively and with the support of the opposition.
A next step, in terms of further licenses, would have to be connected to progress — tangible progress at the negotiating table. We regard that as possible, but we want to see it actually happen.
Q Jake, there’s a report of a meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh a couple of weeks ago that the U.S. helped organize with leaders from Israel, Saudi Arabia, other regional partners in trying to counter the air threat or — from — missile threat from Iran. Can you confirm that? And is that a deliverable you’re eyeing for the next trip in a couple weeks?
MR. SULLIVAN: I’d refer you to CENTCOM on that particular report. And we’re not looking for a specific missile defense deliverable on the trip, although deeper integration and deeper cooperation among all the countries of the region against the Iranian threat, including the Iranian missile threat, is a real priority of this administration, and we expect to continue to move the ball down the field on that, including during the President’s trip.
Q Can I go back to China again? The G7 also commented on China’s coercive non-market practices. The Biden administration — you know, this is not really anything new, but you guys have essentially been ready to go on your own investigation. What is the holdup here? And is the holdup at all related to your efforts in trying to get Xi Jinping to pressure Moscow on the war?
MR. SULLIVAN: No. The short answer and the unequivocal answer is “no.” There’s no connection between our conversations with China on the Ukraine war — Russia’s war in Ukraine and the issue of tariffs and a potential set of steps the United States would take on — vis-à-vis China trade.
You know, I’ve said to you guys before and the President has said this is something he’s looking at, he’s analyzing; there’s a lot of different elements to it. And the President wants to be sure that he’s put together the right approach before he moves out with it. I don’t think he feels that there is a particular deadline for it. Getting it right is more important than just doing it fast, despite the fact that I know it is leaving all of you guys to have to ask the question week after week.
From our perspective, it’s something we’re looking at, the President continues to look at. When he has a decision to make, he’ll make the decision and we’ll move forward from there.
Q Just one more on Is- — on the Belarus. The Russians have said they’re going to supply the Iskander missiles to Belarus, which are nuclear capable. I’m wondering if that is a particular concern to you and whether that changes the dynamic to know that there are these nuclear — will be these nuclear-capable missiles in both Kaliningrad and Belarus.
MR. SULLIVAN: The most important thing to us is what actually happens on the ground, not the theater between Putin and Lukashenko. And this was another one of those instances where they have this made-for-TV conversation that involve not just the Iskanders, but also whether there would be the provision of strategic bombers. And Putin said, “I will withhold those.”
So, will there be Iskander missiles for the long term? Putin says “yes,” but let’s see. Will there be strategic bombers in Belarus for the long term? Putin says “no,” but we’ll see.
So, we’re going to watch and see what actually happens. And, of course, if Russian military deployments, including nuclear deployments in Belarus, occur and are sustained, that is a matter of concern for the entire NATO Alliance, it is a matter of concern for the United States, and it is something that we will take into account as we think about our own force posture.
Q Just one last one. Russia today released a bunch of new sanctions on U.S. officials, including the First Lady. I was wondering if you had any immediate reaction to that, just given that it seems to be a targeted effort to punish the President’s spouse.
MR. SULLIVAN: I have no reaction to that other than it just goes to show you that the Russian capacity for these kinds of cynical moves is basically bottomless, so it probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to any of us that they would do something like this.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, Jake. Appreciate it.
Q Karine, are you going to stick around?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. I don’t have — I don’t have a topper, but whatever — what do you guys want to talk about?
Q Can you tell us about what the White House’s reaction is to this incident in San Antonio with the migrants found in the truck and if this points to a larger problem on the border?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s devastating. So, we’re closely monitoring the absolutely horrific and heartbreaking reports out of San Antonio, Texas. And I can tell you the President has been briefed and is going to continue to be regularly updated.
Our prayers are with those who tragically lost their lives, their loved ones, as well as those still fighting for their lives.
We’re also grateful for the swift work of federal, state, and local first responders.
As Secretary Mayorkas said, “Far too many lives have been lost…[to] this dangerous journey.” We will continue to take action to disrupt human smuggling networks, which have no regard for lives. They explo- — exploit and endanger in order to make a profit.
As you know, the Department of Homeland Security is closely handling this and watching this as well. So, any specifics, I would refer you to them.
Q Karine —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — Republican lawmakers blame the President and his policies for the — for that loss of life. I was wondering if you have any response to that. And does the President believe that the continued sort of — you know, his inability to lift border protections by those two federal court orders may have contributed to this tragedy?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, 46 people died — right? — in the state of Texas, and so — and others, as I just mentioned, are still fighting for their lives.
So we’re still learning their names. Their families are still learning they lost loved ones, as when a tragic situation normally happens. We’re focused on them, on the facts, and holding the human
strugglers [smugglers] who endangered vulnerable individual — individuals for profits accountable.
And we’re — and we’re focused on continuing our historic actions to disrupt dangerous smuggling networks, including through a new anti-smuggling campaign that just in the first two months resulted in over 1,800 arrests. But the fact of the matter is the border is closed, which is in part why you see people trying to make this dangerous journey using smuggling networks.
Again, our hearts go out to the families at this time. We are going to stay focused on the facts and making sure that we hold these smugglers accountable. That’s going to be our focus.
Q So on the Roe v. Wade situation, there’s — you know, have been calls for — I think we talked about this the other day about, you know, building some kind of facilities on federal lands. Are you any further along in terms of exploring those options? And would it be a possibility to come to some agreement with Tribes to use Tribal lands?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So with this proposal — we understand the proposal is well intentioned, but here’s the thing: It could actually put women and providers at risk. And importantly, in states where abortion is now illegal, women and providers who are not federal employees — as you look at the federal lands — could be — potentially be prosecuted. And so, this is — as we understand why they would put forward this proposal, there’s actually dangerous ramifications to doing this.
Q So you can’t offer sanct- —
Q So that’s a no?
Q You can’t offer sanctuary on federal property?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any more to share on that. I — you know, this is — as we have mentioned, we’re looking at some — we’re looking at an array of other options.
We mentioned — the President on Friday, as you know, spoke to two first steps — concrete first steps that we believe will help women get the help that they need to make their decisions for themselves, the he- — for their healthcare.
I just don’t have anything else to share — anything specific on that, but wanted to lay out what that proposal actually meant and so that you have the full breadth of the — of the meaning of what it would be to do that.
Q So the President is on this trip right now. Vice President Harris is doing interviews about the decision and about administrative action. You have Cabinet members making public statements. When is the public going to hear from the President again on this? Does he think that the Vice President is a better message on this — messenger on this than he is?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, it has nothing to do with the — with who’s the best messenger. He’s the President of the United States, right? When the President speaks, people listen and it — and it goes far and wide and it carries weight, obviously.
As he spoke on Friday — the reason why he went out and spoke two hours after the decision was made is because he wanted to make sure he spoke directly to the American people, and he spoke in a very forceful way. He understands the devastation and how stunning this decision was, and he wanted to show that he was using his executive authority to act.
And so, you’re going to hear from the President, because this is — this is def- — to show how important this is, you’re going to hear from the President — not just from the President, but also the Vice President, his Cabinet secretaries. They have made an announcement in the last couple of days on how they’re moving forward with the two concrete steps that he’s taken. And you’re going to hear from the Vice President, which all makes sense in this moment.
Like, this is a — you know, as I said, this is stunning, this is devastating, this is going to cause really terrible consequences for so many people — women across the country.
And the President on Friday was very clear. He said you — he said Congress has to act. We’re going to do these two — first two initial steps; Congress needs to act.
And the way that we’re going to codify Roe is to make sure that it’s the law of the land, and there’s no executive action that’s going to make it law of the land. And if we can’t do that — if Congress won’t do that, then, you know, Americans have to make their voices very clear at the ballot box.
Q Is he going to get out on the road and make that case in — like, next week? Or when can people expect to hear him making that argument?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I just mentioned this is incredibly important to the President. He’s going to continue to talk about this, continue to look at what other options are available to make sure that women are able to have the healthcare that they need. I just don’t have anything to preview at this time.
Q Karine — last one, I guess — on the January 6th Committee scheduling a surprise hearing today: Is the President going to be watching that? Or is he interested in seeing what the committee has to present on such — on such short notice?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, we’re headed to NATO. We’re hopefully going to land very shortly in Spain — Madrid, Spain — where the President is going to do, as we’ve talked about, leader-to-leader conversation on some important agenda, important issues for the — for the NATO members as we go into this for the next couple of days.
Look, we’ve been very, very clear. You know, January 6th, was a — was a dark, dark day in our democracy. It was not just an attack on our democracy, an attack on our law enforcement. And he believes, we believe that it is important for the American public to watch and to see and to learn exactly what happened on that day.
And so, we support the January 6th Select Committee. We have full confidence in them. And we just need to make sure that we get to the bottom of exactly the details of what happened on that day.
All right? Thanks, everybody.
2:45 P.M. CEST