Department Press Briefing – March 1, 2021

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

Washington, D.C.

2:47 p.m. EST

MR PRICE: I’m sorry on two fronts: one, that we’re starting a couple minutes late, and two, it is obviously very warm in here. I’m – been told we’ll have this fixed tomorrow. But let’s get started.

On Friday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence published an unclassified report on the gruesome killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

Today, as President Biden mentioned, I’d like to place this step in the context of a larger effort to recalibrate the terms of our relationship with Saudi Arabia.

From the start, this administration sent a frank message to Saudi leaders. We seek a partnership that reflects our important work together and our shared interests and priorities, but also one conducted with greater transparency, responsibility, and accord with America’s values. In re-establishing U.S. expectations for our relationship with Saudi Arabia, our intent is to make this partnership – which already spans some 80 years – even more sustainable going forward.

That starts with Yemen. President Biden used his first major foreign policy address right here at the State Department to reorient U.S. policy around ending the war in Yemen and addressing the humanitarian crisis in that country. He announced the end of U.S. support for offensive operations, including relevant arms sales, and the administration immediately halted two arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

President Biden not simply change our policy to cut off U.S. support for offensive military operations, he doubled and redoubled American diplomacy to end the war itself. The administration named a special envoy for Yemen, a well-respected senior diplomat, a Foreign Service officer, Tim Lenderking, who is traveling in the Gulf right now, his second in the region since assuming that position. And he’s working closely with the UN to bring the parties together to bring this conflict to an end. We have been encouraged by the cooperation we’ve received to date from Saudi Arabia and believe we initiated a process that is gaining momentum to achieve a negotiated settlement to the conflict and to bring peace to the Yemeni people.

On the humanitarian front, earlier today Secretary Blinken participated in a high-level pledging conference for Yemen where he announced nearly $191 million in additional U.S. humanitarian assistance, bringing total U.S. aid to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people as well as refugees and other forcibly displaced persons in Yemen to more than 3.4 billion since this crisis began some six years ago. Our assistance reaches all corners of Yemen. We also have been working to ensure generous contributions to the humanitarian relief effort by other donors, including, importantly, governments in the region. But the political track must support these humanitarian efforts.

We also continue our efforts to help Saudi Arabia defend itself from external attacks against the kingdom. On Saturday night, with our support, Saudi Arabia successfully intercepted several UAVs and a ballistic missile with which the Houthis tried to attack innocent civilians in Riyadh and other locations in the kingdom. Based on these complex Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, we are considering taking additional steps to promote accountability for the Houthi leadership. We call on the Houthis to cease not only their cross-border raids into Saudi Arabia, but also their military offensive in Marib, agree to a ceasefire, and to come to the negotiating table. To make progress towards peace, Houthi conduct will have to change, too.

Now, on human rights, we have made clear to Saudi leaders that we see value in sustaining our partnership, but actions like jailing women’s rights activists and Americans and holding them for months or even years without charges – those undermine our ties. It undermines our cooperation. We have been encouraged in recent weeks to see Saudi Arabia release several U.S. citizens and human rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul from custody. But we are urging Saudi Arabia to take additional steps to lift travel bans on those released, to commute sentences, and resolve cases such as those women rights activists and others.

We also want to make clear that our leadership would not ignore or minimize egregious misconduct. That takes us back to the beginning. On Friday, our Office of the Director of National Intelligence released an unclassified assessment of the responsibility for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Going forward, our aim is to take steps to ensure a crime like this can never happen again.

To that end, the State Department will further enhance documentation in its annual Human Rights Report of incidents where countries extraterritorially harass or target dissidents, activists, or journalists.

We added another former senior Saudi intelligence official, Ahmad al-Asiri, to the list of those designated under Global Magnitsky sanctions for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

The department announced a new visa policy that empowers the Secretary of State to suspend entry into this country by any individual believed to be actively engaged in extraterritorial abuse of dissidents or journalists on behalf of a foreign government. We call this visa restrictions policy under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the INA, the Khashoggi Ban. As an initial step under this new global authority, we’ve taken action to impose visa restrictions on 76 Saudi individuals involved in the Khashoggi killing or in other acts of territorial repression. It is our intention to prevent them and their immediate family members from ever setting foot on American soil again.

We are aware of a network known as the Rapid Intervention Force, a unit of the Saudi royal guard,that has engaged in counter-dissident operations, including the operation that resulted in the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Others, like Saud al-Qahtani and Ahmad al-Asiri, led the planning of the operation against Khashoggi. We have sanctioned the group and these individuals under the Global Magnitsky sanctions that are working – and we are working to share information about this group’s practices with other governments as well.

We are committed to applying the Khashoggi Ban and other tools as deemed appropriate. We have urged Saudi Arabia to disband this group and then adopt institutional, systemic reforms and controls to ensure that anti-dissident activities and operations cease and cease completely. We have made crystal clear and will continue to do so that the brutal killing of Jamal Khashoggi 28 months ago remains unacceptable conduct.

At the same time, our relationship with Saudi Arabia is important. It’s important to U.S. interests and it requires continued progress and reforms to ensure that this important partnership rests on strong fundamentals and continues to advance our shared objectives in the Middle East. We seek to accomplish a great deal with the Saudis: to end the war in Yemen and ease Yemen’s humanitarian crisis; to use our leadership to forge ties across the region’s most bitter divide, whether that’s finding the way back from the brink of war with Iran into a meaningful regional dialogue or forging a historic peace with Israel; to help young Saudis open their society to connect to the world, to seize their full potential, and to build ties with Americans. But we can only address these many important challenges in a partnership with Saudi Arabia that respects America’s values.

Looking ahead, Saudi actions will determine how much of this ambitious shared positive agenda we can achieve. We are working to put the Saudi relationship on the right footing, to move the region toward greater peace and prosperity while also addressing those very grave concerns that the President and our team share with Congress and many Americans. In all that we do, U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia will be guided by and founded on America’s foundational values. That is what you saw last week and that is what you will see going forward.

So with that, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. Wow. Well, there was a lot there, and I’ve got a lot to ask, but I’ll start with just on Saudi. You do acknowledge, though, that the fact that you did not impose any specific sanctions on the crown prince on Friday or today has raised some concerns among people. You accept that, yes?

MR PRICE: I’ve heard reactions since Friday.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) not asking – okay. So, over the weekend – I guess yesterday, specifically – your White House colleague said that the reason or one of the reasons is that you traditionally – historically – don’t impose sanctions on the leadership of countries with which you have diplomatic relations. Is that also your take on this?

MR PRICE: I stand by what my colleague said.

QUESTION: Okay. Because – and the reason I ask is that’s just simply not true. I can give you a number of examples. I’ve written down – Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Myanmar. Even yesterday the National Security Advisor threatened new sanctions on Myanmar’s leadership. We can go to Sudan. All of these are countries with which the United States has had – has diplomatic relations. We can look at Syria and Venezuela, places where the U.S. has suspended operations at its embassy but has not severed diplomatic ties. All of those countries, the leaders have had sanctions imposed on them. So I don’t understand how this is an argument.

MR PRICE: Matt, what is also true is that there are countries around the world – and I need not name them; I’m sure they are familiar to you – with whom we have profound disagreements. These countries in many cases are competitors; in some cases, some of our staunchest competitors. In some cases, they are adversaries. And in most of those cases, we do not have sanctions on their leadership.

I think what I would say to your question – and this gets back to what I was referring to at the top – we have talked about this, in terms of our partnership with Saudi Arabia, as a recalibration. It’s not a rupture. And I would contextualize that by making the point that it is undeniable that Saudi Arabia is a hugely influential country in the Arab world and beyond. What happens in Saudi Arabia will and has had profound implications well beyond Saudi Arabia’s borders. To be sure, the choices that Riyadh makes will have outsized implications for the region and outsized implications for countries in the region and countries beyond the region, including for the United States.

Our goal in all of this, Matt, is to be able to shape those choices going forward. That’s why we have talked about this not as a rupture, but a recalibration, to ensure that we retain that influence in what we need for our own interests to be a partnership.

QUESTION: Okay, I get that. But it’s not correct that the United States has historically not imposed sanctions on countries or the leaders of countries, the leadership of countries —

MR PRICE: Matt, there are – there are limited exceptions to that, but they are exceptional because – precisely because they are exceptions.

QUESTION: No, no, no. One, two, three, four – I just named five, six countries plus two that you’ve closed down the embassies on and —

MR PRICE: Matt, there are other countries – and I need not name them; you know them – with whom we have adversarial relationships or competitive relationships —

QUESTION: North Korea, but you don’t have diplomatic relations with them. So I just – that argument – I’m trying to get you to say that you acknowledge that that argument is not correct.

MR PRICE: Matt, I would rather not argue about a rather picayune point. I would rather talk about —

QUESTION: Well, you might think that it’s picayune, but I don’t. And if you’re going to go out and say that this is historically an American foreign policy tradition, then it should be historically an American foreign policy tradition. It isn’t.

Anyway, moving on, just – and I’ll stop after this. In terms of the weapons, you’ve talked about the President’s announcement that you’re going to stop selling offensive weapons to Saudi for the Yemen campaign, but what about offensive weapons for Saudi to defend itself in the event that it is attacked? I guess you could – I guess there’s a fine-line distinction between offensive and defensive, but —

MR PRICE: Right.

QUESTION: Well, how are you going to deal with that?

MR PRICE: So we have made clear repeatedly – I just did in the topper; I did over the weekend on Sunday, I believe it was, in the aftermath of the latest attempted Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia – that we stand with Saudi Arabia in its efforts to defend itself. Our technology was important to the defense in the particular attack – attempted attack, I should say, this week. The broader point is that for any weapons sales or transfers, there is now a process in place, thanks to President Biden and his efforts to recalibrate this relationship from the start, that will evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, proposed weapons sales and transfers based on two criteria: our interests and our values. And that second point, that latter point, is incredibly important in this case.

The point we have been making from the start, and it’s a point I have made before from this podium, is that America, the United States, we will never check our values at the door even when it comes to our closest security relationships. It was actually President Biden himself who made precisely that point in October of last year on the second anniversary of the brutal murder – excuse me – of Jamal Khashoggi. You have seen that take place and come to fruition, including in the context of this very relationship we’re talking about. The NSC leads a process to evaluate proposed weapons transfers. That’s the way it should be. They’ll be evaluated based on those criteria on a case-by-case basis going forward.

Yes, Humeyra.

QUESTION: Following up on Khashoggi, so your White House colleague today said the United States reserves the right to sanction Saudi crown prince if necessary. I mean, what more needs to happen for the U.S. to consider sanctioning the crown prince, since the intel community has concluded that this is a person that approved the operation of a hit squad, taking along with themselves the bone saw that resulted in the horrific murder of Khashoggi. Are you guys giving them some time to fix behavior or something? What is the “if necessary?”

MR PRICE: Well, as I have said, we are very focused on future conduct, and that is part of why we have cast this not as a rupture but a recalibration. We are trying to get to the system – systemic issues underlying the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi. It’s precisely why the Department of the Treasury sanctioned Ahmad al-Asiri for his direct role in the Istanbul operation. It’s also why we designated this underlying group, the Rapid Intervention Force, as an entity under the Global Magnitsky Act. It’s precisely why we’ve added 76 individuals to the Khashoggi Ban, and it’s precisely why we announced that Khashoggi Ban in the first place. And that is a policy, that is a ban that applies not only to Saudi Arabia – of course, it was rolled out and its namesake is, of course, what we’re talking about now – but it is a policy that will apply across the board to all of those countries, including to Saudi Arabia, that would dare undertake extraterritorial harassment, persecution, even violence against dissidents.

Now, it is true that we talked about the 76 who were – that we made reference of in the context of the Khashoggi Ban on Friday. As we said at that time, we’re not in a position to detail the identity of those included in that list of 76, nor will we be able to preview those who may be added in the future.

But there will certainly be consequences. There has been consequences for the conduct we’ve saw. I enumerated those measures before. And there will – there was remedial action taken to get to those systemic challenges that we saw come to the fore in the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi more than two years ago now.

Yes.

QUESTION: Could you please respond specifically to the criticism of the UN human rights investigator Agnes Callamard? She said it was “extremely dangerous” for the U.S. to have named Mohammed bin Salman as having approved the operation and not to take action against it. She called it like going to court, being found guilty, and then escaping punishment.

And a second question on the same topic: What message does it send if the Biden administration does not sanction Mohammed bin Salman because it’s not in the national interest, but it keeps its maximum pressure campaign on the sanctions side of it with Iran without even easing any sanctions as a confidence-building measure before getting to talks? What message does that send? It seems uneven.

MR PRICE: Let me take your first question first. In her confirmation hearing, then-designate Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines made clear that the United States would follow the law. When it comes to this report – this is not a new report. This is a report that was completed by our Intelligence Community more than a year ago. That law has been on the books for quite some time. DNI Designate Haines made clear that this administration, which at the time was the incoming administration and now the present administration, would follow the law. And I believe she said in all instances we will follow the law, which, of course, is true.

But she also spoke of our commitment to transparency. So yes, we are fulfilling the legislative prerogative that has been on the books for some time now. We are complying with the law. But we are also complying with our respect for the principle of transparency. We think that transparency is important in this case not only because it is enshrined in law, but also because it is a foundational principle of the principle of informed citizenry. This was a brutal murder, and we are committed – committed to seeing to it that this report saw the light of day.

Now, I take it there was some criticism of this. I don’t think we’re going to apologize for being predisposed to transparency or to ceaselessly fulfilling our commitment to follow the law. That is precisely what we will do going forward: ensuring we remain committed to the principle of transparency consistent with national security, and, of course, to following the law.

Now, on the issue of Iran, look, these are apples and oranges. I would hesitate to even address these two issues in the same breath. But since you raised Iran, look, we have been very clear that the best place for the United States and the Iranians to discuss the diplomatic path forward, the path forward that President Biden spoke to even before he assumed high office, was in the context of talks with the P5+1 that the Europeans have brokered – have offered to broker.

Now, understand there have been developments in that regard. I’m happy to speak to that. We are not dogmatic about the form and the format of those talks. We believe that – we continue to believe that diplomacy is the most effective means to ensure that Iran is permanently and verifiably prevented from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. But again, I think these things are apples and oranges. We have addressed our approach to Iran, we have addressed our approach to Saudi Arabia, and we stand by that.

Yes.

QUESTION: So Friday’s report included a list of the individuals the U.S. says is complicit with Khashoggi’s murder. But shortly after the publication, three names were removed, leading some to ask if the Biden administration was protecting some Saudi officials. What’s your response to that?

MR PRICE: No, this was a report that was put out by the director of – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It was a report that was authored by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. This President has said – and I believe Avril Haines, the current DNI, said on Friday – that under this administration, politics and political influence and intelligence are completely separate. So I would have to refer you to the DNI to speak to the details of that report. I just don’t have anything for you from here.

Andrea.

QUESTION: When you are ready to switch to Navalny.

MR PRICE: Anything else on Saudi?

QUESTION: One more on Saudi.

QUESTION: Take two?

MR PRICE: Sure. Couple more, sure.

QUESTION: So one thing that you said just now is that the Biden administration has taken steps to ensure that a crime like this – obviously the murder of Khashoggi – will never happen again. But I just – I think what we’re all trying to get at still is why do you think that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will never back an action like this to murder a dissident if he himself isn’t facing any direct consequence?

MR PRICE: Again, we feel that we can have the most influence over this partnership when it is cast as a recalibration and not a rupture. Were there to be something more dramatic and something more drastic than what we have talked about, I think the influence that we would have over any foreign leader, be it Mohammed bin Salman or any other world leader in question, would be greatly diminished. That is why we have cast this the way we have.

But look, you can look at this in terms of what we have done since January of this year, and you can also look at it in terms of the steps, albeit incomplete, in the right direction that we’ve seen. So let me start with the former. When you talk about how our approach has set to – has set out to recalibrate this relationship, first, we released the report. That’s what we’ve been talking about since Friday. It is what has sparked the dialogue that we have had since then. Again, we complied with the law, but we also complied with our own commitment to transparency.

We have – second, we have ended America’s support for this brutal war in Yemen. We have not only ended our support for that – for those offensive weapons, but we have prioritized diplomacy and humanitarian assistance. On diplomacy, you saw the President himself appoint Tim Lenderking, a career Foreign Service officer. Tim Lenderking, who is now – is now on his second trip to the region in just a few weeks since taking that post.

And today, you heard Secretary Blinken pledge nearly $191 million in humanitarian assistance for the people of Yemen. We have worked with the region, and well beyond the region, in fact, to encourage the international community to raise its ambition knowing that Yemen is now home to the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe, and the international community has a special responsibility to the long-suffering people of Yemen, and that’s what we’re committed to.

Third, I’ve talked about our new approach to arms sales and to arms transfers putting this back into regular order, putting this back into a framework that preserves not only our interests but also our values through this NSC-led process.

Fourth, we haven’t been afraid to speak up on behalf of human rights, on behalf of the values we share with countries around the world. Whether that’s in the context of Saudi Arabia, whether that is in any other context, that constitutes this recalibration of the relationship that we’ve talked about.

Now, as I said, there have been some steps in recent months in the right direction. The release of Loujain al-Hathloul I mentioned before. Two American citizens – two other American citizens have been released in Saudi Arabia. These have obviously been goals of ours. And we certainly welcomed the release, and we will continue pressing for similar release of other – of others who are held.

Of course, Saudi Arabia has also ended the blockade against Qatar. All of these constitutes – constitute steps in the right direction – very incomplete. We will remain committed to seeing additional progress on these and other areas, but they are signs of progress nevertheless, yes.

QUESTION: Okay, one question just on travel.

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Secretary Blinken said in his statement on Friday, “As a matter of safety for all within our borders, perpetrators targeting perceived dissidents on behalf of any foreign government should not be permitted to reach American soil.” Clearly MBS falls into that category based on the report that was declassified last week. So will MBS be given a waiver to visit the United States? Will he be able to come to the United States at all?

MR PRICE: So let me just repeat: As we have said, we are not in a position to detail the names of those who are subject to the Khashoggi Ban or other potential remedial measures, nor will we be able to preview those who may be added in the future. Having said that, I am certainly not aware of any plans for the crown prince to travel to the United States in the near term.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can I move on?

QUESTION: Do you regard MBS as – do you regard the crown prince as a head of government? Because that’s not his title. And while everyone assumes that he’s the de facto not only head of government but head of state, his title is deputy prime minister and defense minister. So do you —

MR PRICE: I – I don’t think you’re going to hear any arguing from me on that point. As my colleague at the White House has repeatedly said, we are moving this back into a framework of counterpart to counterpart. The counterpart of the President of the United States is King Salman.

QUESTION: No, no, I got – I get that. But that’s head of state to head of state, and so you have – you know the difference between the head of state and the head of government, right? So in a country like Saudi Arabia or in Great Britain, for example, the head of state is different than the head of government. So you don’t regard – well, in Saudi Arabia it is the same person, so —

MR PRICE: The counterpart of the President of the United States is King Salman. The counterpart —

QUESTION: You do not regard MBS as the head of government of Saudi Arabia?

MR PRICE: I am – what I am saying is that the counterpart of President Biden is King Salman. The counterpart of Secretary Blinken is Foreign Minister Farhan. The counterpart of Secretary Austin is Mohammed bin Salman.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I move on?

MR PRICE: Anything else on Saudi before we move on? I see a lot of hands, so I think the answer is no. I’m also cognizant it is very hot in here.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Navalny.

QUESTION: Just one quick —

MR PRICE: I hear Navalny. Anything else on Saudi?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR PRICE: Okay. All right. Yes, please.

QUESTION: Thank you. Abderrahim from Al Jazeera. For the Biden administration, the political future of Mohammed bin Salman, is it something for the Saudis to decide themselves or does the U.S. think it has and must have a dog in the race?

MR PRICE: That we must have a – I didn’t hear you.

QUESTION: A dog in the race.

MR PRICE: Well, we have a dog in the race to ensure that the partnership we have with Saudi Arabia is consistent with our interests but also is reflective of and respects our values. That is the dog we have in this race. That is why we have announced the measures that we did on Friday.

Anything else on Saudi? You’ve asked – yes, Conor.

QUESTION: Just quickly, you mentioned the Yemen donor conference. It fell short by half of what the United Nations was asking for. Are you disappointed, as the secretary-general said that he is? And if so, why didn’t you provide more funding?

MR PRICE: Well, what I would say is that this fiscal year is not yet over. I certainly wouldn’t commit to the idea of the 191 million, which is not an insignificant sum, being the totality of what the United States will be able to put forward going forward. What I would also say is that combined with the nearly 160 million the United States provided at the end of last year, the United States has provided more than 350 million since the beginning of FY 2021. In total – and I mentioned this before – we are one of the largest single donors to the humanitarian response. We have provided more than $3.4 billion to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people since this humanitarian crisis began several years ago.

We are – our message to the region, to the international community more broadly, is that collectively we have to raise our ambition. Collectively we have to do all we can to ensure the alleviation of the people of Yemen. The United States put up today; other countries made generous donations. We need to keep that momentum going. We need to build on that.

Yes.

QUESTION: Were you disappointed as well?

MR PRICE: We need to build on that momentum.

QUESTION: So are you saying – are you just saying that —

QUESTION: Can I ask – just follow up on this?

MR PRICE: Matt, we need to – it’s —

QUESTION: I get it, but are we going to stay on Yemen or are we going to go on to —

MR PRICE: No, I am staying on Saudi and – yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can you say how far up, how senior the list of 76 are? And can you exclude the presence of MBS on that list?

MR PRICE: I’m not including or excluding anyone specifically on that list. What we have said is that we’re not in a position to detail who may be on that list. It is a policy when it comes to visa bans generally.

Yes, Said.

QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move on.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PRICE: Okay, we’re – Matt, I’ll handle —

QUESTION: Perhaps to things that are a bit more mundane, but —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Yemen?

MR PRICE: I think we are still on Yemen/Saudi.

QUESTION: Oh, Jesus Christ.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Anas Elsabbar from Sky News Arabia. I was wondering – you have mentioned that you have contributed or helped the Saudis to counter one of the attacks, Houthi attacks. And I was wondering if you are considering any other measures besides the mission of the special envoy to put more pressure on the Houthis.

MR PRICE: Oh, we are. And I mentioned in the topper – I know it was very long, but – that we are looking at additional ways to apply additional pressure on the Houthi leadership. The reprehensible conduct of the Houthi leadership, its threats and its attacks against the Saudis, its – the way it has inflicted humanitarian suffering on the people of Yemen, those are things we will not countenance. So we are looking at ways we can counter that conduct in a productive and constructive way.

Others on Yemen/Saudi?

QUESTION: Well, yeah, on exactly that point. You’re looking at additional ways to put – you just took, less than a month ago, took pressure off the Houthi leadership by removing the three Houthi leaders from the SDG – specially designated – SDGT list. So are you now – have you now come to the conclusion that that may have been a mistake? Because since that happened and since the Houthis were removed from the FTO list, I count at least four times that you guys have come out with condemnations of Houthi offensive operations, both in Yemen itself and attacks on Saudi Arabia. So was that a mistake in retrospect, to remove the leaders, the three leaders?

MR PRICE: As you and I have discussed previously, the Houthi leadership, they remain subject to U.S. and UN sanctions. It was not a mistake to do everything we could within our power to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the Yemeni people. Again, more than 80 percent of Yemen’s population lives under Houthi control. The broad designation of Ansarallah we determined – the Biden administration determined, and Secretary Blinken signed off on the fact that the – this broad designation was not alleviating, but it was in fact adding to the humanitarian suffering of the Yemeni people. We can hold the Houthi leadership to account without leaving Yemen’s civilian population in the rhetorical crossfire.

QUESTION: Yeah, and if I —

MR PRICE: We can do both of those things.

QUESTION: And if I pull out my lighter, I can burn the strawman down that you just created. I am talking about the specific designations of the leaders, not the FTO. They were removed at the same time as the FTO designation. And now you’re saying today that we’re looking at additional ways to put pressure on the Houthi leadership. So are you saying now that you’re considering putting them back on the SDGT list, or not?

MR PRICE: Matt, I am saying —

QUESTION: Don’t – let’s not talk about the broad – the FTO designation. I’m talking specifically about the leaders, because that’s who you’re talking about.

MR PRICE: I am saying that we are looking at ways – policy measures – that will advance our interests consistent with our values. That is what we do across the board. It is in our interest to ensure that – or to see to it, to do everything we can, that this reprehensible conduct on the part of the Houthi leadership comes to an end. It is also in our interests – and consistent with our values – to ensure we do not add to the humanitarian suffering of the Yemeni people. We can do both.

QUESTION: So what additional measures can you take, then?

MR PRICE: Obviously, we’re not going to preview any measures before we’re in a position to announce them, so —

QUESTION: Can we move on? Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PRICE: We’ve covered a lot on this front. I hear Navalny, and I see my colleague pointing to the clock, so we’ll go to Navalny briefly. Said, I’ll come to you before the end.

QUESTION: I really need to ask you, on the record, a couple questions on the Palestinian issue. Okay.

MR PRICE: But let’s —

QUESTION: Can I just get one question on Russia?

QUESTION: Go ahead. (Inaudible.)

MR PRICE: I will come right back to you.

QUESTION: As long as I’m in line after —

MR PRICE: I will come right back to you.

QUESTION: Okay. Navalny has been sent to a particular labor camp which, according to our colleagues there and others in the movement, is particularly difficult – out of touch, no mail, no contact for at least two years if not longer. Is there – first, what are we doing with the EU? Because the EU mentioned that there was perhaps this week going to be steps taken. Are we working with the EU, and is that coming imminently? And what else might we be doing unilaterally, if anything?

MR PRICE: We have been working extraordinarily closely with the European Union, with our broader like-minded partners, on the issue of human rights and Russia, including the issue of Mr. Navalny, and those who have been unjustly detained in the aftermath of his arrest.

I wouldn’t want to speak to measures that the EU may have coming. I wouldn’t want to speak to any measures that we may have coming. But suffice it to say that we have coordinated very closely. Nothing we do would take the EU by surprise, and vice versa. Because we know, across every challenge, whether it is human rights in Russia, whether it’s ending this horrific war in Yemen, whether it is taking on our competitors, we know that across every challenge, when we bring our allies and partners with us, we have maximum impact. That’s what we have been doing on human rights in Russia, and I suspect you will see more of that going forward.

QUESTION: Well, what – can you give us a time frame? How imminent is action going to be?

MR PRICE: I wouldn’t want to characterize it. I will say that we’ve been working on it as an urgent challenge. We recognize that this is a challenge we have to speak out on, continue to speak out on with one voice, and we need to work on both in rhetoric. And indeed, in terms of rhetoric, you saw the G7 statement from our closest partners and allies condemning the arrest of Mr. Navalny several weeks ago now. That will not be the extent of our coordination on this, but I wouldn’t want to put a specific time frame on it beyond noting that we see this as an urgent priority and have treated it as such.

QUESTION: But what’s the message to the dissident movement, which may indeed be crushed by Russia?

MR PRICE: Our message to the dissident community has been consistent. Our message is that Russia must release those detained for exercising their human rights. That includes Aleksey Navalny. We’ve condemned the Russian Government’s sustained efforts to silence the Russian people, including those of the opposition. As we have said, we consider Mr. Navalny’s detention to be politically motivated. We’re concerned at the latest actions, including what you referenced as well. We have reiterated – excuse me – our call for the Russian Government to immediately and to unconditionally release Mr. Navalny, all those wrongfully detained during the peaceful demonstrations now – in January, and all those since detained for exercising their rights to free expression, free assembly, and to free association.

Said.

QUESTION: Thank you. Very quickly. Today the Israelis announced expanding (inaudible), which is a settlement just north of Bethlehem on privately owned Palestinian land. Now, in the past, not the past administration but before that, there was always a very strong position taken by U.S. administration whenever settlements were built on privately owned land. Do you have a position on this? Are you aware of this?

MR PRICE: We do have a position on this, and it is a position that I have voiced in this room before.

QUESTION: Yes, but – that’s today. Thank you, Ned.

MR PRICE: Well, our position hasn’t changed today. Our position is consistent. We encouraged Israel to avoid unilateral steps that exacerbate tensions and make it more difficult to preserve the viability of a two-state solution. You have heard in many different forms this administration endorse its vision and the longstanding bipartisan vision of a two-state solution. Any steps that put that two-state solution further out of reach, we have opposed and we continue to do so.

QUESTION: Now, Ned, last week you issued a statement on the meeting of the AHLC, the Ad Hoc Committee. Now, there was no mention normally – on Palestine – there was no mention of UNRWA or restoring aid, or let’s say aiding the hospitals in East Jerusalem and so on. So tell us about what’s going on with UNRWA. Are you resuming aid to UNRWA? Is it going to be retroactive aid? Is it happening now? Is it not happening?

MR PRICE: Said, I think as you’ve heard me say before, we intend to provide assistance that will benefit all Palestinians, including refugees. We are in the process of determining how to move forward on resuming all forms of that assistance consistent with U.S. law.

QUESTION: But we’re not talking about refugees, we’re talking about UNRWA. Are you going to resume aid to UNRWA?

MR PRICE: Said, we have said before —

QUESTION: Very simple, UNRWA is – you’ve aided UNRWA all throughout its existence. Now, are you going to resume that aid, or are you not going to resume that?

MR PRICE: I don’t have anything new for you today beyond saying and reiterating that we intend to provide assistance that will benefit all Palestinians, including refugees.

QUESTION: Just briefly on Israel and Palestine. Has the State Department reversed the – Mr. Pompeo’s determination that the settlements in the occupied territories are not necessarily illegal?

MR PRICE: So we wouldn’t comment on any internal deliberative processes here, and that’s a rule across the board. What we would stress is that our focus is on encouraging Israel and the Palestinians to avoid, as I said before, unilateral steps that exacerbate tensions and that make it more difficult to preserve the viability of a two-state solution.

QUESTION: So is it under review, then? Is it under review?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PRICE: Again, we’re not going to comment on any internal deliberative process.

QUESTION: Well, wait, wait, does that – that suggests that there is a deliberative process going on.

MR PRICE: We —

QUESTION: So the previous administration, when it came to a conclusion that it did not think that the Hansell Memorandum was appropriate or accurate, came out and announced it. Will this administration, if it determines that either you’re going to keep it – the previous administration’s position – or change it, will you announce it? Or is that now a deliberative process that you won’t talk about?

MR PRICE: What I would stress is that what will not change is our longstanding position – our position and the longstanding position of successive administrations, is that —

QUESTION: Well, except for the last – well, except for the last one.

MR PRICE: — is – is encouraging – is discouraging, excuse me – unilateral steps that would put a two-state solution further out of reach. If we have —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PRICE: If we have something more to say on this, we will say it.

QUESTION: So there is no change right now?

MR PRICE: We have nothing – we have nothing more to announce. If we do, we will announce it.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: On Iran?

QUESTION: Ned, please – please, Ned.

MR PRICE: Let’s just go to Iran quickly, because we’ve covered —

QUESTION: Wait – on this, please. On this point —

QUESTION: And then can you go to Myanmar? And I want to ask a question on —

QUESTION: On Matt’s point, I —

MR PRICE: We’ll go to Iran quickly. We’ve been up here for quite some time.

QUESTION: What’s the response to the Iranians saying they won’t attend these European informal talks?

MR PRICE: I’m sorry. Say that one more time.

QUESTION: What’s the response to the Iranians saying they will not attend these European-brokered informal talks?

MR PRICE: Well, I think you heard us say over the weekend or at least saw us say over the weekend that we are disappointed at Iran’s response, but we remain ready to re-engage in meaningful diplomacy to achieve a mutual return to compliance under the JCPOA commitments. We’ll be consulting our P5+1 partners as – on the best way forward. As we have made clear, the United States is prepared to meet with Iran to address the way forward on a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA. Resumption of a compliance can’t happen with all – without all sides discussing the details. As I believe I said previously in this briefing, we’re not dogmatic about what form that takes. What we are dogmatic about is the underlying commitment to the fact that President Biden has, that Secretary Blinken has, that this administration broadly has that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: On that —

MR PRICE: Anything else on —

QUESTION: On Iran, yes.

MR PRICE: On – on —

QUESTION: On Iran.

MR PRICE: On Iran.

QUESTION: Yeah. On that, given the state of play with the – the current state of play with Iran, and given Iran’s influence in both Syria and Iraq, could you talk a little bit about your vision of the U.S. military role in Iraq and Syria?

MR PRICE: Well, look, I am going to leave that to my Department of Defense colleagues to speak to. I know they have spoken to this in the past. I am here to speak to the position of the Department of State, to speak to our diplomacy and our diplomatic approaches. And since we have gone on for some time, I wouldn’t want to go into that today.

Yes.

QUESTION: What is that meaningful diplomacy, though, if you guys cannot talk to each other? And how are you thinking about breaking that impasse?

MR PRICE: Well, look, we have made very clear that we are willing to meet with the Iranians in the context of the P5+1 with the invitation from the EU. That offer of ours is on the table. If there are other ideas for ways in which we can engage in this principled, clear-eyed diplomacy together with our closest allies and partners, in coordination with our closest allies and partners, we’re, again, not dogmatic about the form. What we are dogmatic about is the fact that Iran can never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. That is the point of this diplomacy. That is our strategic objective in all of this. What we’re talking about now is tactics.

QUESTION: Are you dogmatic about not lifting any sanctions? Because that’s what they want.

MR PRICE: What we are dogmatic about is that the best way to discuss the path forward is in dialogue. Yes.

QUESTION: Any update on the U.S. involvement in the negotiations of the Ethiopian Grand Dam between Egypt, Sudan? Any update on that?

MR PRICE: Sorry, in the – say that one more time.

QUESTION: The U.S. involvement —

MR PRICE: Oh.

QUESTION: Yeah. Because —

MR PRICE: Not since we last spoke about this. We’ve talked about our decision to de-link certain assistance on Ethiopia from our policy on the GERD. We continue to support collaborative and constructive efforts by Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan to reach an agreement on the GERD. Let me take one final question here.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. I’d like to ask you about Hong Kong.

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday, the Secretary put out a statement regarding the arrest of pro-democracy activists. And last month during an interview he was asked whether the U.S. should open its doors for refugees fleeing Hong Kong, and he said that we should do something to give them haven. Has the administration come to a decision whether they’ll welcome Hong Kong asylum seekers?

MR PRICE: Well, let me say generally that we condemn the re-detention of these individuals under Hong Kong’s national security law. We call on the Hong Kong authorities to immediately release those still held, and to drop the charges against them. Political participation should never be a crime. These individuals simply sought to exercise their rights by participating or helping others to participate in elections. This is yet another example of how the national security law is being used to stifle dissent, not to improve security. We continue to call on Beijing to stop undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy and to – and its democratic process, and to uphold China’s obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

When it comes to the people of Hong Kong, we continue to stand with them. We continue to stand with their aspirations for nothing more than the system that they have been promised. The Secretary did speak to additional ways we might be able to support them. I don’t have an update for you, but we’ll continue to look into that. We’ve gone on for quite —

QUESTION: No – yeah, but Ned, we haven’t talked about Burma yet. And I think that you might want to talk about Burma, no? If you don’t, then that’s fine, and we can all write that Ned Price refused to take a question about Burma.

MR PRICE: Matt, I hope you write that Ned Price has been up here at this podium in a very hot room for over an hour and that Ned Price has been here every day briefing you —

QUESTION: Yes, yes, he is.

MR PRICE: — because of our commitment to transparency, so I hope you write that.

QUESTION: I will do that. Can I ask one brief one on Burma, please?

MR PRICE: Yes.

QUESTION: So yesterday – and in order, there were a series of statements. I’ll put them in order of importance. There was your statement, then there was some guy named Blinken, and then some guy named Sullivan all put out statements about —

MR PRICE: No offense taken at that.

QUESTION: No, no, no, in order of importance, as I —

MR PRICE: Oh, sorry, I —

QUESTION: You were first.

MR PRICE: For my own job security, I would take offense at that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: You were at the top. Anyway, in the last one that came out, the National Security Advisor said you’re looking at new sanctions, the new —

MR PRICE: That’s right. That’s right.

QUESTION: So should the Burmese authorities expect something soon if they don’t reverse course? Is this something that can be stopped if they do reverse course, or are you guys going to go ahead and do it?

MR PRICE: So let me just say generally – because you’re right, we haven’t had an opportunity to speak to this important issue set during this briefing – that we condemn Burmese security forces’ brutal killing of unarmed people, its attacks on journalists and activists, and ongoing unjust detentions. The United States, in close coordination with our partners and allies, we have made clear to the Burmese military that violence against the people of Burma is abhorrent, the recent escalation and tactics by security forces is reprehensible.

The United States stands in solidarity with the tens of thousands of people in Burma who once again came out peacefully across the country with courage and determination to reject this military coup and to voice their aspirations for a return to democratic governance, peace, and the rule of law.

It is true that we have announced now multiple tranches of sanctions against the Burmese military, both individuals and entities. Some of our closest partners – the Brits and the Canadians, among others – have announced their own sanctions. It is also true that if the Burmese military continues down this path, if the Burmese military refuses to restore the democratically elected government and to cease this abhorrent violence against peaceful demonstrators, there will be additional measures forthcoming from the United States.

QUESTION: And then just the last thing, to put a fine point on this. You do have diplomatic relations with Burma, right?

MR PRICE: I am not —

QUESTION: Yes. Yes, you do.

MR PRICE: I am not familiar with any change in our diplomatic status.

QUESTION: Exactly. And yet the leadership of the country now is going to be subject to sanctions, right?

MR PRICE: Matt, as far as I know, the NLD is still the internationally recognized Government of Burma.

Yes.

QUESTION: I apologize, but there is an email from one of our colleagues, from Lara Jakes at the Times, and I just want to nail something down on Khashoggi. Is the U.S. going to grant a waiver to MBS should he want to come to the United States? Because he’s not on the list of those banned; and under a law passed last year, he would need a waiver as someone who has been deemed committing gross human rights violations. He would need a waiver to come to the United States.

MR PRICE: Andrea, you are right that anyone on the so-called Khashoggi Ban list or anyone otherwise subject to a visa ban would need a waiver.

QUESTION: No. Under a separate law passed by Congress last year, anyone in general, prior to the Khashoggi list, would need a waiver —

MR PRICE: I am —

QUESTION: — unless there were extenuating circumstances (inaudible) national interest.

MR PRICE: I am familiar with the law you’re referring to. As we have said, we are not in a position to detail the identities of those presently subject to these measures – the Khashoggi Ban, the law you’ve referenced – nor would we be able to preview those who may be added in the future. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any plans for the crown prince to travel to the United States in the near term.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PRICE: Thank you very much, everyone. I appreciate it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:41 p.m.)

More from: Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

Hits: 1

News Network

  • State Department Employee and Spouse Plead Guilty to Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods from U.S. Embassy
    In Crime News
    A U.S. Department of State employee and his spouse pleaded guilty today to one count of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods. The guilty pleas took place before U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane, who has scheduled sentencing for March 18, 2021, for both defendants.
    [Read More…]
  • Ten Men Sentenced to Prison for Their Roles in a Child Exploitation Enterprise and Conspiracy
    In Crime News
    Ten men from around the [Read More…]
  • Heavy Lift Helicopter Program: Navy Should Address Cost and Schedule Risks
    In U.S GAO News
    Fifteen years into development, the CH-53K program has made progress in testing the aircraft. Program documentation indicates that there is a moderate risk of not demonstrating the required levels of reliability or payload carrying weight by the end of operational testing. The technical issues identified during testing caused program milestones to slip. For example, the full-rate production decision was delayed by nearly 7 years—from December 2015 to November 2022. CH-53K total program costs also increased by nearly $15.3 billion since the program began due to technical issues and a quantity increase fielded helicopters from 156 to 200. The program faces several challenges going forward. First, the schedule for completing the development of the CH-53K does not meet all of the leading practices, which makes the schedule unreliable. Specifically, GAO found that the master schedule is not fully credible or well-constructed. For example, the schedule indicates there is more flexibility in the schedule than it truly has, which can affect the ability to change allocated resources appropriately to meet schedule milestones. Second, the program faces potential further cost increases due to concurrency—or overlap between testing and procurement—which has increased due to delays in the completion of testing. In previous reviews of weapon systems, GAO found that while some concurrency is understandable, it can also result in cost increases and schedule delays, and deny timely, critical information to policy makers. Concurrency, coupled with plans for increased numbers of helicopters to be produced, beyond the six per year currently being built, could result in costly retrofits to helicopters built before the completion of operational testing. This testing will provide decision makers needed information on the resolution of the technical issues facing the program (see figure). CH-53K Helicopter Testing and Procurement, Fiscal Years 2017-2030 The Marine Corps is replacing its aging CH-53E helicopters with the CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter. Designed as an evolution of the CH-53E, the CH-53K is intended to transport armored vehicles, equipment, and personnel from ships to deep inland locations. The CH-53K program office is overseen by the Department of the Navy. As we have previously reported, the program has experienced delayed milestones and cost increases from almost its inception in 2005, in part, due to technical issues. GAO was asked to review the CH-53K program. This report examines the program's (1) progress toward completing testing and demonstrating system experience, (2) schedule and cost performance to date, and (3) potential future challenges. GAO analyzed cost, schedule, performance, test, manufacturing, and planning documents; and interviewed officials from the CH-53K program office, other defense offices—such as the Defense Contract Management Agency—the testing community, and the prime contractor, Sikorsky. GAO recommends that the Navy take steps to ensure the CH-53K schedule is credible and well-constructed, and that the Navy should not exceed the current annual procurement of six helicopters per year until the completion of initial operational test and evaluation. The Department of Defense did not concur with these recommendations. GAO continues to believe that the recommendations are valid, as discussed in this report. For more information, contact Jon Ludwigson at (202) 512-4841 or ludwigsonj@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • The United States Supports the Voices of the Venezuelan People
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • CEO of Financial Firm Pleads Guilty to Running Multi-Million Dollar Securities and Tax Fraud Scheme, and Operating an Unlicensed Money Services Business
    In Crime News
    A California-based man pleaded guilty today to conspiring with others to defraud shareholders of publicly traded companies, transmitting millions of dollars through the operation of an unlicensed money-services business in California, and falsifying multiple years of federal tax returns.
    [Read More…]
  • Former State Department Employee Sentenced to Prison for Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods from U.S. Embassy
    In Crime News
    A former U.S. Department of State employee and his spouse were sentenced today for their roles in a conspiracy to traffic hundreds of thousands of dollars in counterfeit goods through e-commerce accounts operated from State Department computers at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, Republic of Korea.
    [Read More…]
  • Prescription Drugs: U.S. Prices for Selected Brand Drugs Were Higher on Average than Prices in Australia, Canada, and France
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found GAO's analysis of 2020 data found that, for 20 selected brand-name prescription drugs, estimated U.S. prices paid at the retail level by consumers and other payers (such as insurers) were more than two to four times higher than prices in three selected comparison countries. The U.S. prices GAO estimated for comparison reflect confidential rebates and other price concessions, which GAO refers to as net prices. Publicly available prices for the comparison countries were gross prices that did not reflect potential discounts. As a result, the actual differences between U.S. prices and those of the other countries were likely larger than GAO estimates. The price differences varied by drug. Specifically, while estimated U.S. net prices were mostly higher than the gross prices in other countries (by as much as 10 times), some were lower. The following figure illustrates comparisons for two of GAO's selected drugs. GAO found similar differences in estimated prices paid by final payers at the manufacturer level. Estimated U.S. Net Prices and Selected Comparison Countries' Gross Prices at the Retail Level for Two Selected Drugs and Package Sizes, 2020 GAO's analysis found consumers' out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs varied across and within all four countries but likely more within the U.S. and Canada where multiple payers had a role setting prices and designing cost-sharing for consumers, and not all consumers had prescription drug coverage. In Australia and France, prescription drug pricing was nationally regulated and prescription drug coverage was universal; thus, consumers' out-of-pocket costs within these countries for each drug were generally less varied. For example, in Australia, consumers typically paid one of two amounts for prescription drugs—either about 5 or 28 U.S. dollars in 2020. In the U.S., potential out-of-pocket costs for consumers could have varied much more widely depending on the type of coverage they had. For example, for one drug in GAO's analysis, considering only a few coverage options, consumers' out-of-pocket costs in 2020 could have ranged from a low of about 22 to a high of 514 U.S. dollars. GAO provided a draft to the Department of Health and Human Services for review and incorporated the Department's technical comments as appropriate. Why GAO Did This Study While spending on prescription drugs continues to grow worldwide, studies indicate the U.S. spends more than other countries. However, various factors—such as country-specific pricing strategies, confidential rebates to payers, and other price concessions—may obscure the actual prices of prescription drugs. GAO was asked to review U.S. and international prescription drug prices. This report (1) examines how prices at the retail and manufacturer levels in the U.S. compare to prices in three selected comparison countries—Australia, Canada, and France, and (2) provides information on consumers' out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs in these countries. GAO analyzed 2020 price data for a non-generalizable sample of 41 brand-name drugs among those with the highest expenditures and use in the U.S. Medicare Part D program in 2017. Twenty of these drugs had price data available in all four countries. For U.S. prices, GAO estimated the net prices paid using data from various sources, including estimates of Medicare Part D rebates and other price concessions, and commercially available data. Prices for the selected comparison countries were obtained from publicly available government sources. National prices were not available for Canada, so GAO used the prices from Ontario, Canada's most populous province, as a proxy for Canadian prices. GAO also reviewed country-specific guidance and other relevant information and interviewed researchers, manufacturers, and government officials. For more information, contact John E. Dicken at (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • The Department of Justice Files Brief Defending the Constitutionality of Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department [Read More…]
  • Lexington Man Convicted of Multiple Counts of Sex and Drug Trafficking and Related Offenses, Including Witness Tampering
    In Crime News
    After a 7-day trial, a federal jury in Frankfurt, Kentucky, found Prince Bixler, 41, of Lexington, Kentucky, guilty of charges related to his extensive and violent sex and drug trafficking operation that sold crack cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines throughout the Lexington area and forced young, drug-addicted women to prostitute. 
    [Read More…]
  • Breaking Barriers: The NHL’s Willie O’Ree, Documentary Film & Global Discussion on Racial Equality
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Nigerian Foreign Minister Onyeama
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Bolivia Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Do not travel to Bolivia [Read More…]
  • Burmese Military Arrests of Civilian Government Leaders
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Tonga Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel [Read More…]
  • Statement Of AAG Makan Delrahim Thanking Participants In Workshop On Competition In The Licensing Of Public Performance Rights In The Music Industry
    In Crime News
    On Wednesday July 29, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division concluded its two-day virtual workshop on competition in the licensing of public performance rights in the music industry.
    [Read More…]
  • Five Individuals Charged for Roles in $65 Million Nationwide Conspiracy to Defraud Federal Health Care Programs
    In Crime News
    The owners of four orthotic brace suppliers and several marketing companies were charged in a complaint unsealed yesterday for allegedly orchestrating a nationwide kickback and bribery scheme to order medically unnecessary orthotic braces for Medicare beneficiaries.
    [Read More…]
  • Keynote Address of Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen on Combatting Fraud in the Age of COVID-19 at the BBB National Programs NAD 2020 Conference
    In Crime News
    Remarks As Prepared For [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles with School District to Resolve Disability Discrimination Complaint
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department today announced that it reached an agreement with Spencer East Brookfield Regional School District in Spencer, Massachusetts to resolve the department’s lawsuit alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
    [Read More…]
  • Turks and Caicos Islands Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to the [Read More…]
  • Five Charged in Connection with an over $4 Million Paycheck Protection Program Fraud Scheme
    In Crime News
    Five individuals were charged in an indictment with fraudulently obtaining more than $4 million in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and using those funds, in part, to purchase luxury vehicles. Authorities have seized a Range Rover worth approximately $125,000, jewelry, over $120,000 in cash, and over $3 million from 10 bank accounts at the time of arrest.
    [Read More…]
  • Judiciary Report Underscores Commitment to Civics Education
    In U.S Courts
    Federal courts are approaching the 2020-2021 academic year with an endorsement of volunteer civics education efforts by judges and a willingness to support teachers in bringing the human face of the Judiciary into their civics and government classes, whether students are at home or in school.
    [Read More…]
  • Man Arrested for Illegally Entering Office of Speaker of the House
    In Crime News
    Richard Barnett, 60, of Gravette, Arkansas was arrested today in Bentonville, Arkansas on multiple criminal charges related to his alleged unlawful activities earlier this week at the U.S. Capitol Building where he was photographed with his feet up on a desk in the Speaker of the House of Representatives’ office.
    [Read More…]
  • Opening Remarks at the Indo-Pacific Conference on Strengthening Transboundary River Governance
    In Climate - Environment - Conservation
    Ambassador Atul Keshap, [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Old Dominion University to Resolve Disability Discrimination Complaint
    In Crime News
    Today the Justice Department announced a settlement agreement with Old Dominion University (ODU) in Norfolk, Virginia, to resolve its investigation into a complaint that ODU discriminated and retaliated against a graduate student based on disability and her related request for reasonable modifications of policy. The Civil Rights Division conducted the investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
    [Read More…]
  • Twenty-Four Defendants, Including Alleged Aryan Circle Gang Members and Associates Indicted on Racketeering, Firearms, and Drug Charges in Multiple States
    In Crime News
    Five indictments in three different states were unsealed today as law enforcement officers arrested twenty-four defendants, including alleged Aryan Circle (AC) gang members and associates, on charges of racketeering conspiracy, violent crimes in aid of racketeering, drug conspiracy, and unlawful firearms trafficking. 
    [Read More…]
  • Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs David R. Stilwell on the Secretary’s Travel to Japan, Mongolia, and the Republic of Korea
    In Crime Control and Security News
    David R. Stilwell, [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles Race Discrimination Case Against a Florida City Securing $195,000 in Lost Wages and Damages
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department today announced that it has reached a settlement with the City of Venice, Florida, resolving its race discrimination lawsuit against the city. 
    [Read More…]
  • China-Based Executive at U.S. Telecommunications Company Charged with Disrupting Video Meetings Commemorating Tiananmen Square Massacre
    In Crime News
    A complaint and arrest warrant were unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging Xinjiang Jin, also known as “Julien Jin,” with conspiracy to commit interstate harassment and unlawful conspiracy to transfer a means of identification.  Jin, an employee of a U.S.-based telecommunications company (Company-1) who was based in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), allegedly participated in a scheme to disrupt a series of meetings in May and June 2020 held to commemorate the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in the PRC.  The meetings were conducted using a videoconferencing program provided by Company-1, and were organized and hosted by U.S-based individuals, including individuals residing in the Eastern District of New York.  Jin is not in U.S. custody.
    [Read More…]
  • Unaccompanied Children: Actions Needed to Improve Grant Application Reviews and Oversight of Care Facilities
    In U.S GAO News
    The Office of Refugee Resettlement's (ORR) grant announcements soliciting care providers for unaccompanied children—those without lawful immigration status and without a parent or guardian in the U.S. available to provide care and physical custody for them—lack clarity about what state licensing information is required. Further, ORR does not systematically confirm the information submitted by applicants or document a review of their past performance on ORR grants, when applicable, according to GAO's analysis of ORR documents and interviews with ORR officials. The grant announcements do not specify how applicants without a state license should show license eligibility—a criterion for receiving an ORR grant—or specify what past licensing allegations and concerns they must report. In addition, the extent to which ORR staff verify applicants' licensing information is unclear. In fiscal years 2018 and 2019, ORR awarded grants to approximately 14 facilities that were unable to serve children for 12 or more months because they remained unlicensed. In addition, ORR did not provide any documentation that staff conducted a review of past performance for the nearly 70 percent of applicants that previously held ORR grants. Without addressing these issues, ORR risks awarding grants to organizations that cannot obtain a state license or that have a history of poor performance. State licensing agencies regularly monitor ORR-funded facilities, but according to GAO's survey of these agencies, their information sharing with ORR is limited (see figure). State licensing agencies and ORR staff both said that improved information sharing would benefit their monitoring of facilities. Without such improvements, ORR may lack information about ongoing issues at its facilities. Key Survey Responses on Information-Sharing with the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) by the 23 State Agencies That Licensed ORR-Funded Facilities in Fall 2019 ORR requires grantees to take corrective action to address noncompliance it identifies through monitoring, but ORR has not met some of its monitoring goals or notified grantees of the need for corrective actions in a timely manner. For example, under ORR regulations, each facility is to be audited for compliance with standards to prevent and respond to sexual abuse and harassment of children by February 22, 2019, but by April 2020, only 67 of 133 facilities had been audited. In fiscal years 2018 and 2019, ORR also did not meet its policy goals to visit each facility at least every 2 years, or to submit a report to facilities on any corrective actions identified within 30 days of a visit. Without further action, ORR will continue to not meet its own monitoring goals, which are designed to ensure the safety and well-being of children in its care. ORR is responsible for the care and placement of unaccompanied children in its custody, which it provides through grants to state-licensed care provider facilities. ORR was appropriated $1.3 billion for this program in fiscal year 2020. GAO was asked to review ORR's grant making process and oversight of its grantees. This report examines (1) how ORR considers state licensing issues and past performance in its review of grant applications; (2) state licensing agencies' oversight of ORR grantees, and how ORR and states share information; and (3) how ORR addresses grantee noncompliance. GAO reviewed ORR grant announcements and applications for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. GAO conducted a survey of 29 state licensing agencies in states with ORR facilities, and reviewed ORR monitoring documentation and corrective action reports. GAO also reviewed ORR guidance and policies, as well as relevant federal laws and regulations, and interviewed ORR officials. GAO is making eight recommendations to ORR on improving clarity in its grant announcements, communication with state licensing agencies, and monitoring of its grantees. ORR agreed with all eight recommendations. For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • The Nation’s Fiscal Health: Information on the Spending and Revenue Implications of Potential Debt Targets
    In U.S GAO News
    The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated major federal spending to respond to the national public health emergency and resulting economic turmoil. This response and the severe economic contraction from the pandemic have led to increased federal debt. Once the COVID-19 pandemic abates and the economy has substantially recovered, Congress and the administration will need to address the federal government’s fiscal challenges. To help change the long-term fiscal path, in September 2020 GAO recommended that Congress consider establishing a long-term fiscal plan that includes fiscal rules and targets, such as a debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) target. In this report, GAO analyzed the changes in spending and revenue needed to reach six potential debt-to-GDP targets at the end of a 30-year period (2020-2049). To reach any of the targets, policymakers will need to cut program spending, increase revenue, or, most likely, a combination of both (see table). Illustrative Examples of Changes Needed to Achieve Debt-to-GDP Targets Debt target, percent of GDP (end of 30 years) Spending and revenue: total change over 30 years Program spending alone: Immediate and permanent decrease needed in annual projected program spendinga Revenue alone: Immediate and permanent increase needed in annual projected revenue Percent Dollars, trillions Percent Percent 140 25.4 13.8 18.5 120 31.2 16.9 22.8 100 37 20 27 80 42.8 23.1 31.2 60 48.5 26.3 35.4 0 (paying off all debt) 65.9 35.7 48.1 Source: GAO simulation. | GAO-21-211. Note: The simulation used for this analysis generally reflect historical trends, such as the extension of tax provisions scheduled to expire. It does not account for potential macroeconomic effects of fiscal policy changes over time. aProgram spending consists of all spending except interest payments on debt held by the public. When considering the spending and revenue changes needed to achieve various debt-to-GDP targets, policymakers may also consider how changes in assumptions about key variables—such as discretionary spending, revenue, and GDP—affect these fiscal outcomes. For example, if GDP growth is greater than expected, policymakers may have to make smaller spending cuts or revenue increases to reach a selected debt-to-GDP target than those that would be needed based on GAO’s standard assumptions. GAO created an interactive web tool accompanying this report to allow users to enter different assumptions for each of these variables. This tool illustrates how these changes would affect the different debt-to-GDP targets over time, as well as the changes in spending and revenue needed to achieve various targets. This tool can be found at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-21-211. Even before the fiscal and economic effects resulting from COVID-19, an imbalance between federal revenue and spending that is built into current law and policy was contributing to the growing federal debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 federal debt held by the public will reach 107 percent of GDP, its highest point in U.S. history. This situation—in which federal debt grows faster than GDP—means that our nation is on an unsustainable fiscal path. GAO was asked to review issues related to fiscal rules and targets and the federal fiscal condition. In response to this request, in September 2020, GAO issued a report (GAO-20-561) on key considerations for the design, implementation, and enforcement of fiscal rules and targets. This report supplements that work and describes how changes in assumptions of future spending and revenue affect the federal government’s projected fiscal condition. GAO updated its long-term simulations of federal revenue and spending to (1) analyze six potential debt-to-GDP targets and (2) measure the fiscal gap—the policy change needed to reach a given debt-to-GDP fiscal target from the start to the end of 30-years. GAO also analyzed how changes in key variables affected the debt-to-GDP targets and the fiscal gap. For more information, contact Jeff Arkin at (202) 512-6806 or arkinj@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Gender Pay Differences: The Pay Gap for Federal Workers Has Continued to Narrow, but Better Quality Data on Promotions Are Needed
    In U.S GAO News
    The overall pay gap between men and women in the federal workforce has narrowed considerably, from 19 cents on the dollar in 1999 to 7 cents in 2017, but the current pay gap is greater for certain groups of women, according to GAO's analysis of data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Two trends help explain why the pay gap has narrowed: (1) men and women have become more similar in measurable factors related to pay, such as occupation; and (2) women have earned slightly higher rates of pay increases than men. In 2017, most of the overall pay gap—or 6 of 7 cents on the dollar—was not explained by differences between men and women in measurable factors (see figure). This unexplained portion of the pay gap may be due to factors not captured in the data GAO analyzed, such as work experience outside the federal government, or factors that cannot be measured, such as discrimination and individual choices. In 2017, the overall and unexplained gaps were greater for certain groups. For example, compared to White men, the unexplained gap was greater for Hispanic/Latina, Black, and American Indian or Alaska Native women than for White and Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander women. Pay Gap between Men and Women in the Federal Workforce, 1999 to 2017 OPM and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have taken steps to analyze data on the pay gap and help agencies address it. From 2014 to 2016, OPM implemented a government-wide strategy to address the pay gap, and officials said their future efforts will include monitoring the pay gap periodically. EEOC annually collects workforce data from agencies and provides related technical assistance, and officials said they plan to expand these efforts. These data include promotions by gender and race and ethnicity, which EEOC and agencies use to identify potential barriers to career advancement, but GAO found these data were not sufficiently complete. Of the 51 data tables GAO requested, 35 were either missing or had at least one incomplete data element. EEOC officials said this is partly due to promotion applicants not being required to provide demographic information. However, EEOC has not fully assessed the reliability of these data and generally does not follow up with agencies about missing data between technical assistance visits. Without taking steps to assess and improve the quality of these data in a timelier manner, EEOC may miss opportunities to ensure equal opportunity for all promotion applicants. As the nation's largest employer, the federal government employed about 2.7 million workers in 2019. Although the pay gap between men and women in the federal workforce is smaller than it is for the entire U.S. workforce and has narrowed over time, studies show that pay disparities continue to exist. GAO was asked to explore the current status of pay equity in the federal workforce. This report examines how the pay gap between men and women in the federal workforce has changed since 1999, and what factors account for any remaining gap; and the extent to which OPM and EEOC have monitored and taken steps to address the pay gap in the federal workforce, including assessing potential disparities in promotions; among other objectives. GAO analyzed OPM's Enterprise Human Resources Integration data on about 2.1 million federal employees from September 1999 to September 2017 (the most recent reliable data available at the time of GAO's review); reviewed federal agency promotion data collected by EEOC for fiscal years 2015 through 2017 (the most recent available data); and interviewed OPM and EEOC officials and reviewed relevant documentation. GAO recommends that EEOC take steps to assess the quality of federal agency promotion data and address missing data with agencies in a timelier manner. EEOC neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendation. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Designation of a United States Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Iran’s Efforts at Intimidation Must Not Be Rewarded
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Office for Victims of Crime Awards Nearly $4 Million to Support Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Programs
    In Crime News
    The Office of Justice [Read More…]
  • NASA’s Curiosity Keeps Rolling As Team Operates Rover From Home
    In Space
    The Mars mission has [Read More…]
  • On Intra Afghan Negotiations and the Road to Peace
    In Crime News
    Morgan Ortagus, [Read More…]
  • Visa and Plaid Abandon Merger After Antitrust Division’s Suit to Block
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced today that Visa Inc. and Plaid Inc. have abandoned their planned $5.3 billion merger.
    [Read More…]
  • William M. Kelly, M.D., Inc And Omega Imaging, Inc. Agree To Pay $5 Million To Resolve Alleged False Claims For Unsupervised And Unaccredited Radiology Services
    In Crime News
    William M. Kelly Inc. and Omega Imaging Inc., together, operate 11 radiology facilities in Southern California, have agreed to pay the United States $5 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by knowingly submitting claims to Medicare and the military healthcare program, TRICARE, for unsupervised radiology services and services provided at unaccredited facilities, the Department of Justice announced today.
    [Read More…]
  • Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Efforts to Promote Diversity and Inclusion
    In U.S GAO News
    In 2019, the number of women on the boards of directors at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—two government-sponsored enterprises (enterprises)—were five and three, respectively, slightly higher than in 2011. Female directors held leadership positions on the enterprises' boards for the first time in 2019, serving as vice chair at Fannie Mae and chair at Freddie Mac. The percentage of women in senior management positions remained relatively consistent for 2011 and 2018, while minority representation was higher in 2018 than in 2011 (see figure). The enterprises have implemented leading practices to support workforce diversity, such as career and networking events to recruit diverse populations and employee mentorship programs. Share of Women and Minorities in Senior Management at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 2011 and 2018 Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used diverse broker-dealers (such as minority- and women-owned) for financial transactions to a limited extent. In 2019, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both paid about 6 percent of their financial transaction fees to diverse broker-dealers. The enterprises have taken steps to work with diverse broker-dealers more often, such as by lowering some capital requirements to allow participation by typically smaller, less-capitalized diverse broker-dealers. Broker-dealer representatives GAO interviewed said that enterprises had taken steps to increase their participation. However, some representatives noted that additional performance feedback and data on how they compare to larger firms would help them understand what business areas they could improve to meet standards for handling additional, more complex products. The enterprises said that some of the information on other firms is proprietary. In 2017, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) began reviewing the diversity and inclusion efforts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of its annual examinations of the enterprises. In 2017, FHFA found the enterprises generally took steps to promote diversity and inclusion but made recommendations to improve both enterprises' programs. In response, the enterprises have directed more attention and resources to diversity efforts. FHFA officials told GAO the agency planned to review the diversity and inclusion of the enterprises' financial transactions in late 2020 and would update its examination manual to include a focus on activities in this area. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored enterprises regulated by FHFA that buy and pool mortgages into mortgage-backed securities. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 requires the enterprises to promote diversity and inclusion in employment and related activities. GAO was asked to review the enterprises' diversity and inclusion efforts. This report examines, among other things, (1) trends in the diversity of the enterprises' boards and senior management; (2) the extent to which the enterprises used diverse broker-dealers and implemented practices to promote more diversity; and (3) FHFA oversight of the enterprises' diversity and inclusion efforts. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed enterprise and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data on the enterprises' workforces, boards, and broker-dealers; and reviewed FHFA and enterprise policies and regulations and previous GAO reports on these issues. GAO also interviewed FHFA and enterprise staff and a nongeneralizable sample of external stakeholders knowledgeable about broker-dealer diversity. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at (202) 512-8678 or ClementsM@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Enrollment on Arrival
    In Travel
    Enrollment on Arrival [Read More…]
  • Marine Corps Civilian Employee Pleads Guilty to Assaulting His Spouse
    In Crime News
    A civilian employee working for the U.S. Marine Corps Community Association pleaded guilty today to assaulting his spouse while working in Iwakuni, Japan.
    [Read More…]
  • Bangladeshi National Sentenced for Conspiracy to Bring Aliens to the United States
    In Crime News
    A Bangladeshi national formerly residing in Monterrey, Mexico, was sentenced to 46 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release for his role in a scheme to smuggle aliens from Mexico into the United States.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Kadhimi
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • G7 Foreign and Development Ministers’ Meeting
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • DRL Supporting Sudan’s Democratic Transition
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    Bureau of Democracy, [Read More…]
  • Investing in Diversity and Inclusion at State
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Federal Court Shuts Down Atlanta Area Tax Return Preparer
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced today that a federal court in the Northern District of Georgia permanently enjoined the owner of tax preparation businesses in Suwanee, Georgia, from preparing federal tax returns for others.
    [Read More…]
  • Senegal Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Federal charges filed against operators of Houston stash house
    In Justice News
    Five individuals in the [Read More…]
  • As Courts Restore Operations, COVID-19 Creates a New Normal
    In U.S Courts
    When coronavirus (COVID-19) cases spiked in March, court practices changed almost overnight, relying on virtual hearings that make it possible to conduct most court-related activities without coming to the building. Now, with courts seeking to restore in-person proceedings, one thing already is clear: Justice in a pandemic environment will have a very different look and feel.
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Releases $58 Million in Solicitations to Combat the Distribution of Illicit Drugs and Improve Officer Wellness
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced today that the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) has released approximately $58 million in three grant solicitations that will advance community policing, help combat the dual scourges of opioid and methamphetamine use, and promote the health and safety of our nation’s law enforcement officers.
    [Read More…]
  • Hong Kong Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to the [Read More…]
  • U.S.-Greenland Technical Engagement on Mining Sector Education and Training
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Autherine Lucy: Failed Integration Bid Left Lasting Legacy
    In U.S Courts
    The story of Autherine Lucy, who challenged segregation at the University of Alabama in 1956, is featured in the African American History Month page. Despite a federal court ruling, Lucy’s career as a student lasted just three days. But her fight against racism still inspires African American students today.
    [Read More…]
  • Seven North Carolina Tax Preparers Plead Guilty to Conspiring to Defraud the IRS
    In Crime News
    Seven Charlotte, North Carolina tax return preparers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States by preparing and filing false tax returns, announced Principal Deputy Assistant General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, U.S. Attorney R. Andrew Murray for the Western District of North Carolina, and Special Agent in Charge Matthew D. Line of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).
    [Read More…]
  • Former Venezuelan Official Charged in Connection with International Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme
    In Crime News
    Charges were unsealed today against a former official at Citgo Petroleum Corporation, a Houston-based subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned and state-controlled energy company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA).
    [Read More…]
  • West Virginia Doctor Found Guilty of Unlawfully Distributing Opioids
    In Crime News
    A federal jury found a West Virginia doctor guilty today of unlawfully distributing opioids to his patients. The defendant was charged in a September 2019 indictment as part of the second Appalachian Regional Prescription Opioid (ARPO) Strike Force Takedown, a coordinated effort by the Justice Department’s Fraud Section to target unlawful drug diversion activities in areas of the country particularly hard-hit by the opioid epidemic.
    [Read More…]
  • Nuclear Weapons: Action Needed to Address the W80-4 Warhead Program’s Schedule Constraints
    In U.S GAO News
    The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), has identified a range of risks facing the W80-4 nuclear warhead life extension program (LEP)—including risks related to developing new technologies and manufacturing processes as well as reestablishing dormant production capabilities. NNSA is managing these risks using a variety of processes and tools, such as a classified risk database. However, NNSA has introduced potential risk to the program by adopting a date (September 2025) for the delivery of the program's first production unit (FPU) that is more than 1 year earlier than the date projected by the program's own schedule risk analysis process (see figure). NNSA and Department of Defense (DOD) officials said that they adopted the September 2025 date partly because the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 specifies that NNSA must deliver the first warhead unit by the end of fiscal year 2025, as well as to free up resources for future LEPs. However, the statute allows DOE to obtain an extension, and, according to best practices identified in GAO's prior work, program schedules should avoid date constraints that do not reflect program realities. Adopting an FPU date more consistent with the date range identified as realistic in the W80-4 program's schedule risk analysis, or justifying an alternative date based on other factors, would allow NNSA to better inform decision makers and improve alignment between schedules for the W80-4 program and DOD's long-range standoff missile (LRSO) program. W80-4 Life Extension Program Phases and Milestone Dates NNSA substantially incorporated best practices in developing the preliminary lifecycle cost estimate for the W80-4 LEP, as reflected in the LEP's weapon design and cost report. GAO assessed the W80-4 program's cost estimate of $11.2 billion against the four characteristics of a high quality, reliable cost estimate: comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible. To develop a comprehensive cost estimate, NNSA instituted processes to help ensure consistency across the program. The program also provided detailed documentation to substantiate its estimate and assumptions. To help ensure accuracy, the cost estimate drew on historic data from prior LEPs. Finally, to support a credible estimate, NNSA reconciled the program estimate with an independent cost estimate. GAO considers a cost estimate to be reliable if the overall assessment ratings for each of the four characteristics are substantially or fully met—as was the case with the W80-4 program's cost estimate in its weapon design and cost report, which substantially met each characteristic. To maintain and modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, NNSA and DOD conduct LEPs. In 2014, they began an LEP to produce a warhead, the W80-4, to be carried on the LRSO missile. In February 2019, NNSA adopted an FPU delivery date of fiscal year 2025 for the W80-4 LEP, at an estimated cost of about $11.2 billion over the life of the program. The explanatory statement accompanying the 2018 appropriation included a provision for GAO to review the W80-4 LEP. This report examines, among other objectives, (1) the risks NNSA has identified for the W80-4 LEP, and processes it has established to manage them, and (2) the extent to which NNSA's lifecycle cost estimate for the LEP aligned with best practices. GAO reviewed NNSA's risk management database and other program information; visited four NNSA sites; interviewed NNSA and DOD officials; and assessed the program's cost estimate using best practices established in prior GAO work. GAO is making two recommendations, including that NNSA adopt a W80-4 program FPU delivery date based on the program's schedule risk analysis, or document its justification for not doing so. NNSA generally disagreed with GAO's recommendations. GAO continues to believe that its recommendations are valid, as discussed in the report. For more information, contact Allison B. Bawden at (202) 512-3841 or bawdena@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Charges 500+ Domestic Violence-Related Firearm Cases in Fiscal Year 2020
    In Crime News
    Today, the Department of Justice announced it has charged more than 500 domestic violence cases involving firearms during Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. A department priority since 2019 when Attorney General William P. Barr created the Department of Justice’s first ever-Domestic Violence Working Group, these charges are the result of the critical law enforcement partnership between United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, led by Acting Director Regina Lombardo, who has made domestic violence firearms-related investigations a priority.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinkens Call with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]