Department Press Briefing – March 4, 2021

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

Washington, D.C.

2:38 p.m. EST

MR PRICE: Good afternoon. Actually, I don’t have anything at the top, so we will move right to your questions. Sorry to take you by surprise.

QUESTION: Wow. Obviously because there’s nothing going on in the world.

MR PRICE: Well, I want to allow plenty of time for questions.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Can I – I want to start with Burma, Myanmar, because yesterday was another bad day. And I’m just wondering if you have anything that you can say about what the administration is doing. Is there anything both – just in the general sense, but also about particularly journalists who have been rounded up and detained?

MR PRICE: Well, let me start by saying that we are deeply saddened by reports that security forces killed as many as 24 people yesterday, March 3rd. We strongly condemn the use of violence by Burmese security forces against the Burmese people, including peaceful protesters – to your point, Matt – journalists, and civil society. We continue to urge the Burmese military to exercise maximum restraint. This latest escalation in violence demonstrates the fact of the junta’s complete disregard for their own people, for the people of Burma. It is unacceptable, and the world will continue to respond. The United States will continue to respond; we’ll continue to respond in tandem with our partners and allies around the world.

We’ve said this before, but it remains true that tens of thousands of Burmese have courageously taken to the streets peacefully to show the strength of their will and the power of their collective voice. We have sought, again with our partners and allies, to amplify the power of their collective voice. We call on the military to act peacefully and with respect for human rights, including the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. These are two universal rights that are as applicable in Burma as they are anywhere else.

We will continue, as I said, to work with the international community to take meaningful action against those responsible. There will be additional action on the part of the United States. We support freedom of peaceful assembly, including to protest peacefully in support of the restoration of the democratically elected government.

And Matt, you asked about the journalists that have been detained. So allow me just a moment on that. We are, of course, aware of the reports that the military has charged additional journalists with crimes. We are deeply concerned about the increasing attacks on and arrests of journalists. We call on the military to immediately release these individuals and to cease their intimidation and harassment of the media and others who are unjustly detained for doing nothing more than their job, for doing nothing more than exercising their universal rights. We’ve said this before in the context of Burma – we’ve said it before in the context of other countries around the world – but a free and independent media, it plays a critical role in ensuring that people are able to make informed decisions.

We call upon the military to work – on the military to allow journalists to work independently and without harassment, intimidation, or fear of reprisal. As I’ve said before, we have taken a number of actions against the military junta, against the military leaders and military entities responsible for the coup and for related violence, including visa restrictions and asset blocking sanctions. We will continue and expand our efforts to promote accountability for the military’s actions, including the detention of these journalists and the heinous violence that we’ve seen in Burma in recent days.

QUESTION: Can I just get – two very brief things on this, and then I’ll move on, then I’ll stop. But one, and the Khashoggi ban, right, that obviously was related to Saudi Arabia, but is that something that you’re considering using in relation to Burma because of what you’ve just talked about? And then just secondly, you mentioned twice that you’re working with partners and allies. Well, what about countries that might not necessarily be partners and allies, specifically China?

MR PRICE: No, absolutely.

QUESTION: Are you – have you approached the Chinese about maybe them using their influence, whatever it is, with the with the Burmese military?

MR PRICE: So in terms of your first question, the Khashoggi ban, we did unveil this new policy of the Department of State and the United States Government in the context of our response to the gruesome, heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi, but a very important point: The Khashoggi ban is as applicable to Saudi operations as it is to those operations targeting dissidents the world over. The ban has global applicability for countries who would pursue dissidents, political opponents, extraterritorially. So if it is appropriate, if it is relevant in this case, we will not hesitate to apply it.

When it comes to China, let me first start by saying that as you know, and as I think as I repeated yesterday, we have worked since February 1st, since the United States declared the overthrow of the democratically elected civilian government in Burma to be a coup, primarily with our likeminded partners and allies: our partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific, our treaty allies, institutions like ASEAN, our allies in Europe with the G7. But this is a challenge where we have sought to see to it that the world speaks in – with as close to one voice as possible.

We have urged the Chinese to play a constructive role, to use their influence with the Burmese military to bring this coup to an end. As you know, Secretary Blinken has had an opportunity to speak to Director Yang. President Biden has had an opportunity to President Xi. There have been a number of conversations with Chinese officials at different levels. And our message in all of those conversations has been consistent: The world, every responsible, constructive member of the international community needs to use its voice, needs to work to bring this coup to an end, and to restore the democratically elected government of Burma.

QUESTION: Can you say when the last – are you – do you know when the last conversation was with the Chinese about Burma specifically, even —

MR PRICE: We’ve read out many of these conversations. Some of them have taken place at very senior levels, others at lower levels, but we’ve read out the relevant ones.

We’ll move this way. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Matt’s question.

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Since one of the journalists detained is an AP journalist and it’s an American news organization – you kind of addressed this a bit yesterday, but is there a specific communication that you’ve made to the Burmese Government or the embassy has made to the Burmese Government to say we’re concerned about this journalist particularly and we want to see – what do you want to see in that case?

MR PRICE: It’s not always appropriate and it’s not always helpful for us to speak to specific cases. Often times, we can’t speak to specific cases out of privacy concerns as well. But the Burmese military should have no doubt, and I can assure you has no doubt, about where the United States stands when it comes to these unjust detentions. I have just repeated it now. We have made it clear in voices that are certainly much more senior than mine from this government, and so there’s no doubt when it comes to the Burmese authorities.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I follow-up on Matt a little bit? With respect, the U.S. action so far does not seem to have deterred or caused the military junta to change course. So what more do you think you could do when U.S. sanctions don’t really have much of a reach there? And when it comes to China – let’s say any other country, but China seems to have the most influence – is there a specific action you want to see from them? What action could they take that you think would have the most impact in turning this around?

MR PRICE: Well, I would say a couple things. Number one, when it comes to American actions, the – this continues to develop. The full story is yet unwritten in terms of our policy response. And I expect and I am confident that you will see us take additional policy moves to hold to account those responsible for this coup in Burma, for the overthrow of Burma’s civilian and democratically elected government.

In some ways, though, the more important point is what we are doing with our partners and allies around the world. We know that as the most powerful country in the world, what we do matters. What we do will have important impact. But when we work with our partners and allies, using – working with them, cooperating with them as force multipliers, as the Secretary has put it, that we can bring to bear much more influence and sway, regardless of the challenge, and that includes when it comes to holding to account those responsible for this coup in Burma.

I mentioned this yesterday, but a couple of our close partners, including the Brits – the British Government and the Canadian Government have announced sanctions, their own sanctions, against Burmese authorities. We continue – Burmese military junta, I should say. We continue to work with – primarily with our likeminded partners and allies around the world to speak with one collective voice and to act collectively to hold to account those responsible for this.

When it comes to China, our message has been very clear. China needs to be a constructive, responsible actor when it comes to the military coup in Burma. Of course, there was a statement that emanated from the UN Security Council several weeks ago now that no country, including China, stood in the way of. We would like to see responsible actors and parties around the world, including the Chinese, continue to condemn this, to condemn this forcefully, and to use appropriate policy responses to hold to account those responsible for this.

QUESTION: Is there a specific policy response you want to see from China on this?

MR PRICE: Look, it’s not up to us to dictate what any other country does. But we have made very clear to countries around the world, our close partners and allies, and our competitors, our chief competitor in the case of China, what we think a responsible and constructive response might look like.

Yes. Anything else on Burma, or should we move on?

QUESTION: Iran?

MR PRICE: Iran. Sure. We’ll start with Iran, and then we’ll go there.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. I was wondering if the U.S. regrets the withdrawal of the European resolution in – to censor Iran in Vienna, or if you’ll see it as a good way to allow diplomacy to happen, the meeting to happen.

MR PRICE: Well, I would say just first of all that IAEA Director Grossi offered a proposal for Iran to address unanswered concerns regarding its nuclear program. The E3 decided, with the full support of the United States, that the best way to support the IAEA’s process was to refrain from putting forward the draft resolution at the meeting of the Board of government – Governors.

We are pleased with the outcome of the IAEA Board of Governors meeting with respect to Iran. The proposal that was put forward by Director Grossi were – we supported the E3, we supported it. We also recognize that the director general has put forward a realistic schedule, which we understand Iran has accepted, when it comes to the next steps. And we will look forward with strong interest for Iran’s willingness to engage in a way that leads to credible, concrete progress on these issues.

QUESTION: Some French diplomats told us in Paris today that they are now quite optimistic that the meeting including the U.S. and Iran could happen in the next couple of weeks in Brussels. Do you share this feeling? Do you have some feedback about that?

MR PRICE: What we’ve consistently said about this is that we are neither optimistic nor pessimistic. We are clear-eyed when it comes to our diplomacy, knowing that we are engaging in this with our closest partners, the E3 in this case; knowing that we have put a proposition on the table, both a strategic proposition – the shorthand for which is compliance for compliance; if Iran resumes its full compliance with the JCPOA, the United States will be prepared to do the same – as well as a tactical proposition. And that tactical proposition was one we first talked about last month that if the EU put forward an invitation, the United States would be prepared to accept in the context of talks, direct talks with Iran and the P5+1.

Again, we’re not dogmatic about the format. What we are dogmatic about is our overarching objective, and that is to ensure that Iran is subject to permanent, verifiable restrictions that prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: And just a quick last one. At such a meeting between Iran and the U.S., are you ready to negotiate synchronized steps by the U.S. and Iran to come back in compliance? Is that the idea? I think that’s —

MR PRICE: What we are ready to do —

QUESTION: — what Iran is waiting to know, if you’re ready to negotiate synchronized steps.

MR PRICE: Well, Iran should not be waiting for anything, because we have stated very clearly that what we are prepared to do is to engage in constructive dialogue. That is the offer that has been on the table. I know that various proposals and ideas have been put forward from various capitals. The proposal that we have put forward, that the E3 has accepted and endorsed, that the EU has now put forward its own offer, is to take part in principled, clear-eyed, constructive negotiations in the context of the P5+1 with the Iranians, where we can discuss the very issues that might be at play.

Again, if there are other proposals for formats, we are open to those. But what we are going to be rigid about is our recognition about what we seek, and that is very simple: permanent, verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program, limits that permanently prevent Iran from ever attaining a nuclear weapon. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton – Blinken yesterday talked about two foreign policy achievements under Obama-Biden administration, and one was the Iran deal. Are you at all worried that this sort of “you go first” and getting entangled in who takes the first step will result in precious time lost in the collapse of a deal under your watch, something that didn’t happen under Trump administration even though they tried very hard. Are you worried about that?

MR PRICE: Well, I think I would take issue with the premise of the question. It was under – it certainly hasn’t been since January 20th that the United States has withdrawn from the deal. It certain – it certainly hasn’t been since January 20th that Iran has distanced itself from the requirements imposed by the JCPOA.

What we are concerned about is the idea that Iran would remain unconstrained by nuclear limits, limits that are verifiable, limits that permanently prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is why we are approaching this challenge with urgency. That is why, from essentially day one, we have taken on the task of undertaking those consultations with partners, with allies, with members of Congress, that culminated a couple weeks ago now in our offer that the EU put forward to take part in direct talks with the Iranians in the context of the P5+1.

So look, I think when you – if you want to dissect what happened with the JCPOA, you have to start well before January 20th. What we are focused on is ensuring that we get back to a point where Iran is permanently and verifiably constrained and to a point where Iran can never acquire or produce a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: Your incoming deputy secretary, likely incoming secretary, Ambassador Sherman, said in 2009, “I would be shocked if Iran agreed to a meeting without some sanction relief.” How is – what makes you think that is not the case now?

MR PRICE: 2009 is very different from —

QUESTION: ’19.

QUESTION: ’19.

MR PRICE: Oh, ’19. ’19. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: 2009 is – you were – whatever.

MR PRICE: I’m sorry, I misheard you. Look, the point we have been making is the point I would remind you of, and namely that there have been various proposals that have been put on the table. We feel that the best place to address those proposals is in direct diplomacy with the Iranians that we are willing to undertake in the context of the P5+1. The EU has offered to convene these talks. We had accepted that invitation. I understand we are still waiting to hear from the Iranians.

But all these questions about the details behind the strategic proposition that President Biden has put forward, this proposition of compliance for compliance, the best place to address that is through the context of diplomacy.

QUESTION: And one last one on visa restriction, because absent in these conversations is the impact of the previous administration’s policy on Iranian people other than sanctions. The ban, the Muslim ban has been removed, but a lot of other policies remain, one of which is Washington Post reported a few days ago, the people – many young men in Iran are forced to do their – serve their military service in IRGC. And since the designation, there’s a letter from U.S. embassy in Dubai in Abu Dhabi telling one American who’s trying to bring his – her husband to United States that you did your military service in IRGC, therefore you cannot join your wife and your child. There seems to be a continuation of implementation of those policies under Trump administration.

Is there any review for cases like this where ordinary people are getting caught up in policies that remain in – on the books?

MR PRICE: Well, I couldn’t speak to any specific case, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so. What I would say is that – and I have said this in other contexts as well – that we can do a couple things at the same time when it comes to Iran. We can seek to ensure, as we are doing, that Iran can never be allowed to acquire or produce a nuclear weapon, just as we put pressure on Iran’s continuing support for terrorism and terrorist groups throughout the region. We can do those two things simultaneously.

And in fact, our principled, clear-eyed pursuit of a means to verifiably and permanently prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, that in turns – that in turn allows us take on in a more effective way other areas of Iran’s malign activity and influence. Every challenge we face with Iran would be compounded, would be all the more difficult if Iran were on the precipice of producing a nuclear weapon, if Iran were on the precipice of producing a nuclear weapon, or certainly if Iran over time were able to cross that precipice.

We are committed to preventing that. We are committed to preventing that for our own national security, for the national security of our close partners and allies in the region, but also because we know that all of these challenges would become more difficult and more complex. And the idea that we have talked about, going beyond this idea of compliance for compliance, going beyond this idea of lengthening and strengthening the nuclear agreement, is the idea that the mutual return to the JCPOA is necessary, but in the long term it’s insufficient. It’s insufficient because of Iran’s continuing malign influence and malign activities in the region. And that’s why, using the stronger and longer JCPOA as a platform, we ultimately seek to negotiate follow-on agreements that address some of these areas of concern. And, of course, Iran’s continued support for terrorism throughout the region is a profound concern of the United States and our partners and allies.

Yes.

QUESTION: Yes, I wanted to ask about the National Security Strategy, or the interim guidance. It seems to differ from the past national security strategies in terms of making China the primary global threat. Russia seems to be secondary; it doesn’t have the sort of global language about Russia. That seems to reflect what the U.S. has focused on lately, which is China the last few years. My question is: How does Secretary Blinken plan to follow that? Does that mean in regions like Europe, where there are priorities related to China and priorities related to Russia, that the one related to China will take precedence? Some things – Nord Stream 2 – if that’s an issue with Russia, does that need to be patched up so that we can work together on China? In the Middle East or Africa, where China and Russia are both active, is it more important to counter China? Is it – in other words, will this document be something that’s acted on, and how will that work in the Secretary’s diplomacy?

MR PRICE: Well, I think it’s fair to say that the White House wouldn’t have put out this document and Secretary Blinken wouldn’t have previewed it in his speech yesterday if it’s not something we don’t seek to adhere to, something that we don’t seek to follow through on. Even before we get to China, I think I would be remiss if I didn’t mention one of the defining features of this document and one of the defining features in Secretary Blinken’s remarks yesterday, and that is that the foreign policy vision that President Biden has set out, and really our North Star in executing it is a vision of foreign policy that delivers for the American people. At every step of the way, at every crossroads, we seek to make their lives more secure, create opportunities for them and their families, and to tackle to the global crises that are increasingly shaping their futures.

I believe the National Security Advisor has put it this way, that there’s one simple question we should ask ourselves at every single policy decision: Is what we are doing making the lives of the American people safer, easier, and better? And that’s precisely what this policy sets out. It seeks to bridge that longstanding and in some cases wide chasm between domestic policy and foreign policy.

Now, one of those issues that is really at the nexus of the domestic and the foreign is China. And that, of course, is because China is fundamentally a competitor of ours. It is a competitive relationship. It is a relationship that has adversarial elements that we all know about. It is a relationship that, when it’s in our interest, can have cooperative elements. And I think the fact that one of the priorities that Secretary Blinken laid out in his speech yesterday – he did mention managing the biggest geopolitical test of the 21st century, our relationship with China. You didn’t see other countries enumerated on his list of priorities in precisely the same way because China is a strategic competitor that crosses virtually every realm – the economic realm, the security realm, the technological realm, our shared climate, weapons of mass destruction, the Indo-Pacific region itself. And so it is a challenge I think that in many ways is qualitatively different from the other country-specific challenges that we have.

Now, that’s not to say that we don’t face threats from Russia, and in fact we do. We, of course, just this week spoke about our actions against Russian Government entities for their grave violation of human rights of their own citizens. The director of national intelligence is undertaking a number of reviews into Russia’s malfeasance, including its interference in our elections, the reports of bounties on American service members in Afghanistan, the SolarWinds cyber security breach.

So we are clear-eyed about the threat that Russia poses, and Russia also seeks to gain influence in regions that are somewhat farther afield from the Russian Federation. But Russia doesn’t pose or have the capability – have the ability, I should say, to pose quite the same challenge that China does, given the way in which the China challenge is – transcends, I would say, these various realms in ways that other country-specific threats don’t always do.

QUESTION: So does that mean, like, in Region X, when it comes to China, the Secretary will follow the course that is most useful in competing with China in region X, rather than whatever other influences looks to be out there?

MR PRICE: No, I think the way to think about it is that the Secretary or the President in region X, Y, or Z will pursue what’s in our interests and what’s consistent with our values. And in many cases, what is in our interests and consistent with our values will be to push back on adventurism on the part of Russia or China. But I would hesitate to apply a cookie-cutter model to it, because each situation, each region, is going to be somewhat different.

What isn’t different is that, across the globe, we recognize this competitive relationship with China. Our strategy is one that seeks to compete and to outcompete with the Chinese across the board. And to what the Secretary said yesterday, to what the interim strategic guidance said yesterday, we do that knowing that we have these unique sources of strength that truly no other country around the world does. It’s our values. It’s our system of alliances and partnerships.

But it is also our sources of domestic strength, what we bring to the table as the American people, from our innovation, from our creativity, from our vibrant economy. And those are sources of strength that China can’t match, that Russia can’t match, and that when we bring them fully to bear, that task of competing and ultimately outcompeting with Beijing becomes all the more achievable.

QUESTION: Ned, one of things that Will mentioned in his – in the first question was Nord Stream 2.

MR PRICE: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And I’m just curious. There’s another report today about yet more ships or another ship that was not sanctioned but that is involved in laying the pipeline. And I’m just wondering, the Secretary’s supposed to go up to the Hill next week to the House Foreign Affairs Committee —

MR PRICE: Are you asking a question or are you looking for —

QUESTION: I’m wanting to know if he’s going to be able to tell them anything about adding additional sanctions onto – and I see Nick is standing up, but we still have a lot of other stuff to go through including Yemen, Lebanon, refugees, and I also have a question on Bahrain, so maybe he should sit down, because you’re going to have to go through all of this.

MR PRICE: We’ll let Nick assume whatever posture he would like. So on Nord Stream 2, we have spoken about the report that we submitted to Congress in recent days. That report to Congress did detail the sanctionable activity of KVT-RUS, an entity knowingly selling, leasing, or providing the vessel Fortuna for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. It was the department’s analysis and determination that the Fortuna was engaged in just the sort of activity that was proscribed in the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act, or PEESA.

Now, of course, this is not the end of the story. Every 90 days, we are required to provide Congress with an update of our analysis and our determination of relevant and applicable sanctionable activity in the context of Nord Stream 2. So, again, if we determine that other entities are engaging in sanctionable activity as outlined in – by PEESA, the congressional legislation, we will report that to Congress going forward. I believe the next report is due to Congress in May.

QUESTION: There’s PEESCA too.

MR PRICE: PEESA.

QUESTION: Yeah. But there’s another one, PEESCA.

MR PRICE: PEESCA, okay.

QUESTION: PEESA and PEESCA.

MR PRICE: Please.

QUESTION: Go to Lebanon?

MR PRICE: Okay.

QUESTION: My Bloomberg colleague had a story earlier today saying the administration is thinking about sanctioning the central bank chief. Can you speak to whether that’s the case, and also whether the State Department remains concerned about what appears to be continued protests, obviously, but also concerns about corruption and embezzlement in Lebanon?

MR PRICE: Well, to your second question, we are closely monitoring the situation in Lebanon. We and our international partners – we have repeatedly underscored both publicly and privately, the urgency for Lebanon’s political leaders to finally act upon the commitments they made to form a credible and effective government. The United States supports the Lebanese people and their continued calls for accountability and the reforms needed to realize economic opportunity, better governance, and an end to the endemic corruption, much of which has fueled what we have seen in Lebanon in recent days. I wouldn’t want to get ahead of things. I wouldn’t want to preview or speak to any potential policy responses at this time.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PRICE: Yes, Paola. Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: Oh, Ryo Nakamura from Japan’s Nikkei newspaper. Thank you very much for taking my question. Several questions. There are reports that Secretary Blinken will visit Japan and that U.S. and Japanese Governments are considering having a 2+2 secretary dialogue in Japan. Could you confirm this report?

MR PRICE: I’m not in a position to confirm any reports of travel at this time. I think what is true and what I can confirm is our deep commitment to the Indo-Pacific region. Obviously, the Secretary has had an opportunity to speak with many of our close counterparts, including our treaty allies in the region, other partners in the region. I think you’ll see us continue to demonstrate our commitment to the Indo-Pacific going forward.

QUESTION: Separate question: I want to ask you about the importance of in-person meeting in the U.S. diplomacy. What do you think is the difference between in-person meeting and virtual meeting in terms of messaging? Do you regard in-person meeting as a better way to demonstrate the strength of the – the U.S. strength or partnership with American allies?

MR PRICE: It’s a really interesting question and it’s one we’ve thought about. Obviously, the pandemic and our current reality poses any number of challenges for daily life, but also for the conduct of diplomacy. It has heretofore prevented us from the Secretary traveling around the world. I know that this Secretary has been itching to get on the road and to conduct that diplomacy in person, but, of course, our priority is not only to the health and safety of our own staff but also to those with whom we would come into contact. And so, of course, we are cognizant to ensure that we are operating consistent with relevant guidelines.

I think, at the same time, the pandemic does also afford us opportunities, or at least the opportunity to explore new diplomatic opportunities. And you saw the Secretary do that last week when he embarked on his first virtual trip to Mexico and Canada. It would have been a very long day had Secretary Blinken physically traveled to both Mexico and Canada last Friday, but he was able to engage in bilateral diplomacy with our North American partners from the confines of the Benjamin Franklin Room.

QUESTION: It was a long day anyway.

MR PRICE: It was a long day anyway. That’s true. Not quite as long.

So we are looking for ways to take advantage of technology where appropriate. I think over the longer term, no one is under the illusion that technology is going to be a substitute, nor should it, for the conduct of face-to-face diplomacy. But we have been trying to make lemonade out of the lemons that the pandemic has delivered to us.

Yes.

QUESTION: Question on Yemen. The Houthis have now claimed another attack on Saudi Arabia. Do you expect the recent sanctions on the two Houthi leaders this week will do anything to deter them? I mean, the criticism being that it just plays into their narrative that they’re under assault from the West.

MR PRICE: Well, you’re right that we will continue to hold the Houthi leadership to account for their reprehensible conduct, including for continued attacks against our Saudi partners.

I think over the longer term what not only the United States but also Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region recognize, what we certainly recognize, is that there is not a military solution to the conflict in Yemen. I think that is growing increasingly clear the world over. It is precisely why President Biden in one of his first major national security appointments as President appointed Tim Lenderking as a special envoy for Yemen. It is precisely why Tim Lenderking has been on the road for much of his time in that role, to support in large part what UN Special Envoy Martin Griffiths has sought to do.

And so I think just as we continue to put pressure on the Houthi leadership, we are going to continue to work with all relevant parties to see to it that we can achieve a durable and a lasting – first a ceasefire and a durable and lasting political settlement. Ultimately that is what will bring an easing of the humanitarian suffering to the people of Yemen and what will also I think lead to a more stable Yemen and ultimately a more secure Saudi Arabia as well.

Yes.

QUESTION: A couple questions on Ethiopia. The prime minister’s office announced yesterday that they are investigating what they say are credible reports of atrocities. Do you think that is enough? You’ve previously called for an independent international investigation.

MR PRICE: Do we think that is enough?

QUESTION: Is it enough that they would conduct their own?

MR PRICE: Well, we have repeatedly engaged the Ethiopian Government on the importance of ending the violence, ensuring unhindered humanitarian access to Tigray, and allowing a full, independent international investigation into all reports of human rights abuses. We also noted the commitments, the public commitments, that the prime minister had made in recent days. Secretary Blinken spoke to the prime minister earlier this week, on Tuesday I believe it was, and the readout of that call noted that Secretary Blinken raised Prime Minister Abiy’s own commitments.

I think what we’re going to look to are both the right words, but of course, even more importantly, the follow-through. And it’s that follow-through that is important for us to see, precisely because it is that follow-through that will be so important to end the plight of the people of Tigray, to put an end to these reports of terrible human rights abuses that have plagued that region in recent weeks.

QUESTION: You’ve said that atrocities have been committed by multiple parties in your readout on Tuesday, your statement over the weekend. Can you be more specific in terms of who you believe are committing these atrocities? And if not, why wouldn’t you name names on this?

MR PRICE: Well, there have been a number of reports that have emerged, a number of credible, public reports. Before we – rather than speak to that at this moment, we’ve called on all relevant parties to ensure that these atrocious human rights abuses come to an end. We’ve been clear that Eritrean troops need to leave, that these abuses on all sides need to come to an end.

QUESTION: When you say Eritrean troops need to leave, do you believe that they are, in part, responsible for some of these atrocities?

MR PRICE: Again, we’ve seen multiple reports of these atrocities. It’s increasingly clear that what has transpired in Tigray has been reprehensible. And so our focus is on bringing this conduct to an end. That’s why we’ve engaged at multiple levels, including recently with the prime minister of Ethiopia himself, to see to it that humanitarian access is allowed and to see to it that the Ethiopian Government – and to call on all sides to do all they can to bring the suffering of the people of Tigray to an end.

QUESTION: The last question on it —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.) I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Sorry. Just one last one.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: The EU has named a special envoy and they’ve made the decision to withhold aid to Ethiopia over all of this. Why haven’t you taken similar steps?

MR PRICE: Well, we have taken steps that are very much in line with what you have heard from the EU to bring an end to the reported human rights abuses in Tigray. We are – we have been very clear in our words. We have been very clear in our private words with relevant parties as well. And I think you will see a continued focus on the part of this administration on Tigray given the atrocious reports that have continued to emanate from the region.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR PRICE: Okay.

QUESTION: Have any American diplomats either requested access to that region or been granted access to that region?

MR PRICE: So USAID, U.S. Agency for International Development, issued a statement earlier this week, I believe it was, noting that they are sending a Disaster Assistance Response Team, or DART, to Tigray. So we are very much engaged in doing all we can to facilitate and to provide some of this humanitarian relief to the people there.

Yes.

QUESTION: On Kashmir, it’s been a while for the ceasefire to stay into effect, but peace is tenuous, and I’m curious if you’ve had any specific conversations, what Secretary Blinken is going to do to ensure or try to ensure that the ceasefire maintains.

MR PRICE: Well, I think we said this yesterday, but it is true that we have continued to follow very closely developments in Jammu and Kashmir. Our policy towards the region has not changed. We call on all parties to reduce tensions along the Line of Control by returning to the 2003 ceasefire commitments. We condemn terrorists who seek to infiltrate across the Line of Control.

When it comes to how we will support that, we continue to support direct dialogue between India and Pakistan on Kashmir and other areas of concern.

QUESTION: There are a number of Kashmiri leaders who feel voiceless in the process. Is the United States going to do anything to actually engage not just the officials from the Indian and Pakistani official delegations but Kashmiris within the contested region to see what they – what you can do to help elevate their voices in the solution?

MR PRICE: I don’t have anything for you on that. If there’s anything we can add, we will.

Yes, please.

QUESTION: Thank you. I would like to ask about Brazil. Secretary Blinken has already spoken with Minister Ernesto Araujo, but I would like to know when President Biden will speak to President Bolsanaro.

MR PRICE: Well, I wouldn’t be in a position to preview any calls, any potential calls, on the part of the White House. I think what is true pertains to our partnership with Brazil, our two centuries of that partnership have been and remain today important to both our nations and to our hemisphere. Brazil and the United States are the region’s largest democracies and the largest economies. We share a commitment to democratic values. We work together to address the most urgent global and regional challenges of the 21st century. Our partnership is important to both our nations – and the entire region, in fact – and it’s based on shared commitments to democratic values that, again, span nearly two centuries.

QUESTION: Also, the Brazilian foreign minister said this week that President Bolsanaro will make efforts to attend the Earth Summit in April. So I’d like to ask, what kind of commitments does the United States expect from Brazil for Brazil to make during that meeting?

MR PRICE: Well, that is obviously for Brazil to decide and to announce themselves. I think what is true is that the President, the Secretary of State, Special Envoy for Climate John Kerry, they’re focused on advancing action at home and around the world to reach net zero emissions globally by mid century and to keep the limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius average temperate increase within reach.

And when – in order to achieve that goal, partnering with Brazil is critical to effectively tackling the shared global challenge of climate change. We hope to expand on our track record of cooperation with Brazil and see Brazil take additional concrete steps towards combatting climate change and achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

QUESTION: And just one last question, if I could. Does the U.S. Government see the current state of the pandemic in Brazil as a threat?

MR PRICE: Well, we see the pandemic around the world in every country as a potential threat, and it is precisely because as long as the pandemic continues to rage, no one can be safe from it. As we have seen with the development of variants – various variants around the world, until the pandemic is controlled, until it is contained, we can’t achieve our end goal of putting this pandemic to an end.

That is precisely why on his first day in office President Biden re-engaged with the World Health Organization, recognizing that, again, this is one of those challenges that the United States can put a dent in but we can’t certainly solve on our own. It’s precisely why you heard from President Biden of our $4 billion commitment to the COVAX facility, including $2 billion in the near term, knowing that for the United States in the first instance we are focused on getting a safe and effective vaccine to millions of Americans here at home, but there is also a broader task. And Americans won’t be safe, no other country will be safe, as long as the pandemic continues to spiral. And that’s what we seek to put an end to.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. plan on helping Brazil with that, with vaccines as well?

MR PRICE: Well, again, we have been engaged with the international community, we have re-engaged with the WHO, we have made a substantial commitment to the COVAX facility in the first instance in the form of $2 billion. So we are doing what we can to alleviate this global pandemic.

QUESTION: And – Hi, Ned. The WHO mission to Wuhan to investigate the origins of the virus, there’s reporting in The Wall Street Journal today that they’re considering not even publishing the interim report on that. At the time, you said that you were waiting to see the data. Did you ever get the full data from that team? And there’s also calls today for a new international inquiry, basically start again, because this one doesn’t seem to have been given access in the right way. Does the U.S. support that, calls for a new inquiry?

MR PRICE: Well, we haven’t seen the findings in question. Of course, aware of the report that the findings – that the interim findings won’t be released publicly. What we’ve made clear for several weeks now is that we have deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of COVID – of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated, and questions about the underlying process used to reach them.

We believe – and you saw a statement from the National Security Advisor to this effect a couple weeks ago now – that it’s imperative that this report be independent with expert findings free from intervention or alteration by Chinese Government authorities. And to better understand this pandemic and prepare for the next one, we know and we’ve continued to call upon China to make available its data from the earliest days of the outbreak.

The important point here is that it is not just about understanding what happened when it comes to the origins of this pandemic. It is about learning and doing, being positioned to do everything we can to protect ourselves, the American people, and the international community against pandemic threats going forward. That’s why we need this understanding. That’s why we need this transparency from the Chinese Government.

QUESTION: Ned, I’ve got two that I think you can dispatch with very quickly. One is on Bahrain. Yesterday – we spend a lot of time talking about the Middle East in here. Yesterday there was a letter that was sent to the Secretary by some human rights groups about the situation in Bahrain, which has not come up in this briefing. And I’m just wondering, one, if you are aware that the letter has been received; and secondly, whether or not it has been received or not, is the situation in Bahrain something that this administration is taking a close look at?

And then secondly on refugee admissions, there are reports today – there’s one on CNN about refugees who are booked on flights to come, even including today, but because the presidential determination has not yet been sent to the Hill, they were basically removed from these flights. So I’m just wondering if you can update us on, one, if you’re aware of those – these reports; and two, what, if anything, is being done about them. Thanks.

MR PRICE: When it comes to Bahrain – and we’ve made the point which applies to Bahrain equally as it does any other country that the United States – we bring our values with us in the context of every bilateral relationship. That includes with our close security partners. It includes with countries with whom we have a strategic partnership.

I would need to get back to you as to whether the Secretary has received that letter. But of course, human rights in the Middle East and beyond will continue to be at the center of our policy. We have talked about that in different contexts to date, but it applies equally across the board.

When it comes to refugees, of course, the President believes, Secretary Blinken believes, that it is very much in our DNA to be a country that welcomes those fleeing persecution, welcomes those fleeing violence the world over. It’s precisely why discriminatory travel bans were done away with. It’s precisely why the President spoke early on of his commitment to the United States refugee program.

I don’t have any updates for you in terms of our efforts to undo some of the damage to that program, but I’m sure we’ll be in touch going forward.

QUESTION: Well, are you aware of these reports about people who were supposed to, like, come even today and got bumped off flights?

MR PRICE: I would need to look into it.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR PRICE: Okay, I think we’ll call it a day. Thank you very much. We’ll see everyone tomorrow.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:27 p.m.)

# # #

More from: Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

Hits: 5

News Network

  • Veteran Federal Employment: OPM and Agencies Could Better Leverage Data to Help Improve Veteran Retention Rates
    In U.S GAO News
    From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, veterans left federal government jobs at a higher rate than non-veterans, according to GAO analysis of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data. After controlling for key demographic and employment factors, GAO estimated that on average, 6.7 percent of veterans left the federal government compared to 5 percent of similar non-veterans. While veterans primarily left to retire, veterans resigned from federal service at 1.6 times the rate of similar non-veterans. GAO also estimated that 18.7 percent of veterans resigned within their first 5 years of federal service compared to 11.1 percent of similar non-veterans. Each of the 24 Chief Financial Officer Act agencies experienced higher rates of attrition among veteran employees than similar non-veteran employees. GAO identified six workplace factors associated with veterans' intentions to leave federal service. These factors—or drivers of retention—are based on an analysis of data from the OPM Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (OPM FEVS), a tool for collecting employees' perceptions of their federal work experiences. Key Workplace Factors Associated with Veterans Considering Leaving Federal Service More than half of both veterans and non-veterans reported being satisfied with five of the six factors. More than half of both veterans and non-veterans reported not being satisfied with opportunities for advancement at their agencies. Overall we found that veterans were slightly less satisfied with these factors than non-veterans, which could in part explain the higher attrition rates for veterans. Improvements in employee satisfaction in these areas may lead to higher retention rates. Performing analyses similar to those in this report could help agencies identify and strengthen strategies for improving veteran retention. However, challenges exist for agencies using OPM FEVS data on their own to identify drivers of retention among their workforces. OPM could help agencies with these analyses so they could use data to address veteran retention issues and other workforce challenges. Approximately 200,000 servicemembers transition from military service to civilian life each year, according to the Department of Defense. A 2009 executive order created a government-wide initiative to increase veteran federal employment. While veteran hiring has increased since 2009, OPM has raised concerns about retention and job satisfaction of newly hired veterans. GAO was asked to analyze veteran federal employment data. This report analyzes (1) recent trends in attrition for veterans and non-veterans, and (2) key factors that may affect a veteran employee's decision to leave federal employment. GAO conducted a statistical analysis comparing attrition for veterans and similar non-veterans for fiscal years 2014 through 2018 (the most current data available). GAO conducted a literature review to identify potential drivers of retention and used regression methods to analyze OPM FEVS data to identify key drivers for veterans and non-veterans. GAO also interviewed OPM officials and veteran service organizations. GAO recommends that OPM assist the 24 CFO Act agencies by using OPM FEVS data to analyze the key drivers of veterans' retention. OPM partially concurred with the recommendation because of concerns about its scope and, in response, we modified it. For more information, contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-2717 or jonesy@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Joint Statement by the Secretary of State of the United States of America, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, and the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, and Italy
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Doctor Pleads Guilty to Not Paying Employment Taxes
    In Crime News
    A doctor, formerly of Great Falls, Virginia, pleaded guilty today to willful failure to pay employment taxes, announced Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Acting U.S. Attorney Raj Parekh for the Eastern District of Virginia.
    [Read More…]
  • Southwest Border: Schedule Considerations Drove Army Corps of Engineers’ Approaches to Awarding Construction Contracts through 2020
    In U.S GAO News
    Why This Matters Following a 2019 Presidential Declaration of National Emergency, billions of dollars were made available for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' use on border barrier construction. This report provides information on the Corps' contracting for border barriers during fiscal years 2018–2020. Key Takeaways Some Department of Defense funding was only available for a short time before expiring, giving the Corps a tight schedule for awarding contracts. This—and the emergency declaration—led the Corps to depart from its planned acquisition approach. The Corps focused on starting construction quickly and maximizing the miles of border barrier panels it could build. To do so, it: Awarded $4.3 billion in noncompetitive contracts. Competition helps ensure the government gets a good price. Started work before agreeing to terms. The Corps awarded several contracts before terms, such as barrier specifications and cost, were finalized. By focusing on expediency in contracting, the government risks paying higher costs. Contractors completed most DOD-funded border barrier panels by the end of December 2020 as scheduled. A January 2021 Presidential Proclamation paused border barrier construction to the extent permitted by law, and called for a review. In March 2021, DOD officials said they gave input to the Office of Management and Budget, and OMB will present a plan to the President. The Corps has not developed plans to examine its overall acquisition approach and identify lessons learned. Without doing so, the Corps could miss opportunities to strengthen its contracting strategies in future border support efforts. Border Barrier Obligations, Fiscal Years 2018–2020 How GAO Did This Study We reviewed all of the border barrier construction contracts the Corps awarded for projects from fiscal years 2018 through 2020. We also reviewed relevant federal procurement data and interviewed Corps and Department of Homeland Security officials.
    [Read More…]
  • Charges Unsealed Against Former Chadian Diplomats to the U.S. Charged in Connection with International Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme
    In Crime News
    An indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. was unsealed on May 20, 2021, charging the Republic of Chad’s former Ambassador to the United States and Canada and Chad’s former Deputy Chief of Mission for the United States and Canada with soliciting and accepting a $2 million bribe from a Canadian start-up energy company, and conspiring to launder the bribe payment in order to conceal its true nature.
    [Read More…]
  • Information Technology: Federal Agencies Need to Take Urgent Action to Manage Supply Chain Risks
    In U.S GAO News
    Few of the 23 civilian Chief Financial Officers Act agencies had implemented seven selected foundational practices for managing information and communications technology (ICT) supply chain risks. Supply chain risk management (SCRM) is the process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks associated with the global and distributed nature of ICT product and service supply chains. Many of the manufacturing inputs for these ICT products and services originate from a variety of sources throughout the world. (See figure 1.) Figure 1: Examples of Locations of Manufacturers or Suppliers of Information and Communications Technology Products and Services None of the 23 agencies fully implemented all of the SCRM practices and 14 of the 23 agencies had not implemented any of the practices. The practice with the highest rate of implementation was implemented by only six agencies. Conversely, none of the other practices were implemented by more than three agencies. Moreover, one practice had not been implemented by any of the agencies. (See figure 2.) Figure 2: Extent to Which the 23 Civilian Chief Financial Officers Act Agencies Implemented Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Practices As a result of these weaknesses, these agencies are at a greater risk that malicious actors could exploit vulnerabilities in the ICT supply chain causing disruption to mission operations, harm to individuals, or theft of intellectual property. For example, without establishing executive oversight of SCRM activities, agencies are limited in their ability to make risk decisions across the organization about how to most effectively secure their ICT product and service supply chains. Moreover, agencies lack the ability to understand and manage risk and reduce the likelihood that adverse events will occur without reasonable visibility and traceability into supply chains. Officials from the 23 agencies cited various factors that limited their implementation of the foundational practices for managing supply chain risks. The most commonly cited factor was the lack of federal SCRM guidance. For example, several agencies reported that they were waiting for federal guidance to be issued from the Federal Acquisition Security Council—a cross-agency group responsible for providing direction and guidance to executive agencies to reduce their supply chain risks—before implementing one or more of the foundational practices. According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials, the council expects to complete this effort by December 2020. While the additional direction and guidance from the council could further assist agencies with the implementation of these practices, federal agencies currently have guidance to assist with managing their ICT supply chain risks. Specifically, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued ICT SCRM-specific guidance in 2015 and OMB has required agencies to implement ICT SCRM since 2016. Until agencies implement all of the foundational ICT SCRM practices, they will be limited in their ability to address supply chain risks across their organizations effectively. Federal agencies rely extensively on ICT products and services (e.g., computing systems, software, and networks) to carry out their operations. However, agencies face numerous ICT supply chain risks, including threats posed by counterfeiters who may exploit vulnerabilities in the supply chain and, thus, compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an organization's systems and the information they contain. For example, in September 2019, the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency reported that federal agencies faced approximately 180 different ICT supply chain-related threats. To address threats such as these, agencies must make risk-based ICT supply chain decisions about how to secure their systems. GAO was asked to conduct a review of federal agencies' ICT SCRM practices. The specific objective was to determine the extent to which federal agencies have implemented foundational ICT SCRM practices. To do so, GAO identified seven practices from NIST guidance that are foundational for an organization-wide approach to ICT SCRM and compared them to policies, procedures, and other documentation from the 23 civilian Chief Financial Officers Act agencies. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in October 2020. Information that agencies deemed sensitive was omitted and GAO substituted numeric identifiers that were randomly assigned for the names of the agencies due to sensitivity concerns. The foundational practices comprising ICT SCRM are: establishing executive oversight of ICT activities, including designating responsibility for leading agency-wide SCRM activities; developing an agency-wide ICT SCRM strategy for providing the organizational context in which risk-based decisions will be made; establishing an approach to identify and document agency ICT supply chain(s); establishing a process to conduct agency-wide assessments of ICT supply chain risks that identify, aggregate, and prioritize ICT supply chain risks that are present across the organization; establishing a process to conduct a SCRM review of a potential supplier that may include reviews of the processes used by suppliers to design, develop, test, implement, verify, deliver, and support ICT products and services; developing organizational ICT SCRM requirements for suppliers to ensure that suppliers are adequately addressing risks associated with ICT products and services; and developing organizational procedures to detect counterfeit and compromised ICT products prior to their deployment. GAO also interviewed relevant agency officials. In the sensitive report, GAO made a total of 145 recommendations to the 23 agencies to fully implement foundational practices in their organization-wide approaches to ICT SCRM. Of the 23 agencies, 17 agreed with all of the recommendations made to them; two agencies agreed with most, but not all of the recommendations; one agency disagreed with all of the recommendations; two agencies neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations, but stated they would address them; and one agency had no comments. GAO continues to believe that all of the recommendations are warranted, as discussed in the sensitive report. For more information, contact Carol C. Harris at (202) 512-4456 or harrisCC@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Operation Legend: Case of the Day
    In Crime News
    A Bates City, Missouri, man was charged in federal court after law enforcement officers seized nearly two dozen firearms and illegal drugs from his residence.
    [Read More…]
  • Taiwan Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Exercise normal [Read More…]
  • RGV attorney admits to detainee list bribery scheme
    In Justice News
    A 40-year-old Weslaco [Read More…]
  • Former Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent and Task Force Officer Convicted of Conspiracy and Conversion of Property
    In Crime News
    A former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agent and a former DEA task force officer were convicted Tuesday by a federal jury in New Orleans, Louisiana, in connection with a long-running scheme to steal personal property and money from individuals who had been arrested.
    [Read More…]
  • South Texan heads to prison for possessing nearly 1500 pornographic images of minors
    In Justice News
    A 27-year-old [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with the United Arab Emirates Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with New Zealand Secretary Chris Seed
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Mali Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Do not travel to Mali [Read More…]
  • 2020 Wiretap Report: Intercepts and Convictions Decrease
    In U.S Courts
    Federal and state courts reported a combined 26 percent decrease in authorized wiretaps in 2020, compared with 2019, according to the Judiciary’s 2020 Wiretap Report. Convictions in cases involving electronic surveillance also decreased.
    [Read More…]
  • U.S. Seizes Virtual Currencies Valued at $24 Million Assisting Brazil in Major Internet Fraud Investigation
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced today that it has seized virtual currency worth an estimated $24 million on behalf of the Brazilian government.
    [Read More…]
  • New York Plumbing Contractor Sentenced to 20 Months in Prison for Employment Tax Fraud
    In Crime News
    A New York man was sentenced today to 20 months in prison for failing to collect and pay over to the IRS $732,462 in employment taxes.
    [Read More…]
  • Imposing Sanctions on Russia for the Poisoning and Imprisonment of Aleksey Navalny
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Special Envoy Pham Participates in Ministerial Roundtable for the Central Sahel
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Statement from Attorney General William P. Barr on the Resignation of Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best
    In Crime News
    Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following statement in response to the resignation of Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best:
    [Read More…]
  • Stalking Victimization, 2016
    In Justice News
    (Publication)
    This report details the demographic characteristics of stalking victims and describes the nature of stalking victimization, including the number of offenders, the victim-offender relationship, and the frequency and duration of the stalking.
    4/15/2021, NCJ 253526, Rachel E. Morgan, Jennifer L. Truman [Read More…]
  • Manufacturers of “Spice” Sentenced for Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise and Other Crimes
    In Crime News
    Two defendants were sentenced Wednesday to 20 years each in federal prison for crimes committed in connection with the manufacture of synthetic cannabinoid products (commonly referred to as “spice”), operating a continuing criminal enterprise, manufacturing and distributing controlled substance analogues, wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, maintaining a drug premises, and possession of a listed chemical with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance.
    [Read More…]
  • Two Texas Men Plead Guilty in Odometer Fraud Scheme
    In Crime News
    Two Texas men pleaded guilty today to for their roles in an odometer tampering scheme.
    [Read More…]
  • National Bio and Agro-defense Facility: DHS and USDA Are Working to Transfer Ownership and Prepare for Operations, but Critical Steps Remain
    In U.S GAO News
    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have taken steps to plan for and implement the successful transfer of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) from DHS to USDA for ownership and operation. (See figure.) The facility is to house state-of-the-art laboratories for research on foreign animal diseases—diseases not known to be present in the United States—that could infect U.S livestock and, in some cases, people. The departments' steps are consistent with selected key practices for implementation of government reforms. In addition, USDA has taken steps to prepare for NBAF's operation by identifying and addressing staffing needs; these steps are consistent with other selected key practices GAO examined for strategically managing the federal workforce during a government reorganization. However, critical steps remain to implement the transfer of ownershp of NBAF to USDA and prepare for the facility's operation, and some efforts have been delayed. Critical steps include obtaining approvals to work with high-consequence pathogens such as foot-and-mouth disease, and physically transferring pathogens to the facility. DHS estimates that construction of NBAF has been delayed by at least 2.5 months because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. USDA officials stated that, until the full effects of delays to construction are known, USDA cannot fully assess the effects on its efforts to prepare for the facility's operation. In addition, USDA's planning efforts were delayed before the pandemic for the Biologics Development Module—a laboratory at NBAF intended to enhance and expedite the transition of vaccines and other countermeasures from research to commercial viability. A November 2018 schedule called for USDA to develop the business model and operating plan for the module in 2019. Officials stated in May 2020 that USDA intends to develop the business model and operating plan by fiscal year 2020's end. Construction Site of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) as of November 2019 and an Artist's Rendering of NBAF When Complete USDA's efforts to date to collaborate with DHS and other key federal or industry stakeholders on NBAF have included meeting regularly with DHS officials to define mission and research priorities, developing written agreements with DHS about DHS's roles and responsibilities before and after the transfer, and collaborating with the intelligence community, as well as with relevant international research groups and global alliances, on an ongoing basis. These efforts are consistent with selected key practices for interagency collaboration, such as including relevant participants and clarifying roles. Foreign animal diseases—some of which infect people—can pose threats to the United States. USDA and DHS have been developing NBAF to conduct research on and develop countermeasures (e.g., vaccines) for such diseases, as part of a national policy to defend U.S. agriculture against terrorist attacks and other emergencies. DHS is constructing NBAF in Manhattan, Kansas. DHS originally assumed responsibility for owning and operating NBAF. However, USDA will carry out this responsibility instead, following an executive order from 2017 to improve efficiency of government programs. Construction is expected to cost about $1.25 billion. GAO was asked to review issues related to development of NBAF and USDA's plans for operating it. This report examines (1) efforts to transfer ownership of NBAF from DHS to USDA and to prepare for the facility's operation and (2) USDA's efforts to collaborate with stakeholders. GAO reviewed DHS and USDA documents and interviewed key department officials and various stakeholders. GAO also compared the departments' efforts on NBAF with selected key practices for government reforms and collaboration. For more information, contact Steve D. Morris at (202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Armed drug traffickers head to prison
    In Justice News
    Two men will now serve [Read More…]
  • Venezuela: Additional Tracking Could Aid Treasury’s Efforts to Mitigate Any Adverse Impacts U.S. Sanctions Might Have on Humanitarian Assistance
    In U.S GAO News
    The Venezuelan economy's performance has declined steadily for almost a decade and fallen steeply since the imposition of a series of U.S. sanctions starting in 2015. For example, the economy declined from negative 6.2 percent gross domestic product growth in 2015 to negative 35 percent in 2019 and negative 25 percent in 2020. The sanctions, particularly on the state oil company in 2019, likely contributed to the steeper decline of the Venezuelan economy, primarily by limiting revenue from oil production. However, mismanagement of Venezuela's state oil company and decreasing oil prices are among other factors that have also affected the economy's performance during this period. U.S. agencies have sought input from humanitarian organizations to identify the potential negative humanitarian consequences of sanctions related to Venezuela and taken steps to mitigate these issues. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Department of State (State) have solicited input from U.S.-funded humanitarian organizations on challenges they face, including the impact of sanctions. The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and State have also taken steps to mitigate negative consequences. For example, Treasury issued licenses permitting various types of humanitarian assistance transactions in Venezuela (see figure). Treasury also maintains a call center and email account through which organizations can receive assistance with compliance issues or other challenges related to sanctions. While Treasury officials told GAO they respond to individual inquiries, Treasury does not systematically track and analyze information from these inquiries to identify trends or recurrent issues. Without collection and analysis of this information, Treasury and its interagency partners may be limited in their ability to develop further actions to ensure that U.S. sanctions do not disrupt humanitarian assistance. U.S. Humanitarian Assistance Supplies for Venezuelans U.S. sanctions related to Venezuela have likely had a limited impact, if any, on the U.S. oil industry. Despite an overall lower supply of oil in the U.S. market from the loss of Venezuelan crude oil due to sanctions, crude oil and retail gasoline prices in the U.S. have not increased substantially. Many other factors in addition to the sanctions simultaneously affected the oil market and the price of crude oil and retail gasoline prices, including production cuts in January 2019 by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and decreased demand for energy during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to industry officials to whom GAO spoke, U.S. refineries have adjusted to these changes by shifting to alternative sources and types of crude oil. Venezuela has been experiencing an economic, political, and humanitarian crisis. The U.S. government has imposed sanctions on Venezuela's state oil company, government, and central bank, among others, in response to activities of the Venezuelan government and certain individuals. Treasury and the Department of State lead the implementation of the sanctions program, and USAID is primarily responsible for implementing humanitarian assistance for Venezuelans. GAO was asked to review U.S. sanctions related to Venezuela. This report examines: (1) how the Venezuelan economy performed before and since the imposition of sanctions in 2015; (2) the steps U.S. agencies have taken to identify and mitigate potential negative humanitarian consequences of sanctions related to Venezuela; and (3) what is known about the impact of U.S. sanctions related to Venezuela on the U.S. oil industry. GAO analyzed economic indicators, reviewed documents, interviewed agency officials, and spoke with representatives from selected humanitarian organizations and the U.S oil industry. GAO recommends that Treasury systematically track inquiries made to its call center and email account, including the specific sanctions program and the subject matter of the inquiry to identify trends and recurring issues. Treasury concurred with GAO's recommendation. For more information, contact Kimberly Gianopoulos at (202) 512-8612 or GianopoulosK@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Seeks Forfeiture of Two Commercial Properties Purchased with Funds Misappropriated from PrivatBank in Ukraine
    In Crime News
    The United States filed two civil forfeiture complaints today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that commercial real estate in Louisville, Kentucky, and Dallas, Texas, both acquired using funds misappropriated from PrivatBank in Ukraine, are subject to forfeiture based on violations of federal money laundering statutes.
    [Read More…]
  • Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Ian Brownlee Travels to Tucson, El Paso, Nogales (Sonora), and Ciudad Juárez
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles Title VII Lawsuit Against Tallahatchie County, Mississippi, Alleging Intentional Discrimination Based on Race
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement agreement resolving the United States’ claims that Tallahatchie County, Mississippi, and the Tallahatchie County sheriff in his official capacity (collectively, Tallahatchie County), intentionally discriminated against Black deputy sheriffs based on their race, by paying them less than white deputy sheriffs, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    [Read More…]
  • Ongoing Investigation into Violent White Supremacist Gang Results in Rico Indictment and Additional Charges against Members and Associates
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced today that additional charges have been brought in a superseding indictment against members and associates of a white supremacist gang known as the 1488s. The 1488s have been charged as a criminal organization that was involved in narcotics distribution, arson, obstruction of justice, and acts of violence including murder, assault, and kidnapping.
    [Read More…]
  • Deputy U.S. Marshal Charged with Cyberstalking and Perjury
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in the Central District of California returned an indictment Wednesday charging a Deputy U.S. Marshal with conspiracy to commit cyberstalking, cyberstalking, and perjury.
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Sues Yale University for Illegal Discrimination Practices in Undergraduate Admissions
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department today filed suit against Yale University for race and national origin discrimination. The complaint alleges that Yale discriminated against applicants to Yale College on the grounds of race and national origin, and that Yale’s discrimination imposes undue and unlawful penalties on racially-disfavored applicants, including in particular most Asian and White applicants.
    [Read More…]
  • Owner of Medical Laboratory Sentenced to Prison for Filing False Tax Returns
    In Crime News
    A Shreveport, Louisiana, business owner was sentenced to 40 months in prison on Sept. 30, 2020, for filing false tax returns, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana Alexander C. Van Hook.
    [Read More…]
  • NASA CubeSat Will Shine a Laser Light on the Moon’s Darkest Craters
    In Space
    To support the next wave [Read More…]
  • Designation of a United States Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • On the Passing of Former Palau President Kuniwo Nakamura
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Briefing With State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Scott W. Busby
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Scott Busby, Deputy [Read More…]
  • Owner of Food Service Firm Operating in Government Buildings Throughout the D.C. Area Sentenced to Prison for Payroll Tax Fraud
    In Crime News
    A Potomac, Maryland, owner of companies providing food services in government buildings was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment for not paying more than $10 million in employment and sales tax, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Acting U.S. Attorney Michael R. Sherwin for the District of Columbia.
    [Read More…]
  • South Korea Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles Disability Discrimination Claims Against 19 Building Owners
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department today announced that it reached a single agreement with 19 building owners* who rent space in their buildings to stores and restaurants. 
    [Read More…]
  • Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute Release of Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XI, Part 1, Iran: Hostage Crisis, November 1979–September 1980
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Judges Welcome New Americans at Wrigley Field
    In U.S Courts
    In the friendly confines of Wrigley Field, two federal judges welcomed 172 immigrants from 45 countries as newly minted United States citizens, during an Independence Day weekend naturalization ceremony hosted at the home of the Chicago Cubs, on Friday, July 2.
    [Read More…]
  • United States Trains Ukraine To Identify and Respond to the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Targeted Assassinations
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Somerset County Man Admits Concealing Material Support to Hamas
    In Crime News
    A Somerset County, New Jersey, man admitted today that he concealed his attempts to provide material support to Hamas, Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers of the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito, FBI-Newark Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch Jr., and FBI Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Jill Sanborn announced.
    [Read More…]
  • Sweden Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Austria National Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Aviation Safety: Actions Needed to Evaluate Changes to FAA’s Enforcement Policy on Safety Standards
    In U.S GAO News
    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directed individual offices to implement the Compliance Program, and FAA has increasingly used compliance actions rather than enforcement actions to address violations of safety standards since starting the Compliance Program. FAA revised agency-wide guidance in September 2015 to emphasize using compliance actions, such as counseling or changes to policies. Compliance actions are to be used when a regulated entity is willing and able to comply and enforcement action is not required or warranted, e.g., for repeated violations, according to FAA guidance. FAA then directed its offices—for example, Flight Standards Service and Drug Abatement Division—to implement the Compliance Program as appropriate, given their different responsibilities and existing processes. Under the Compliance Program, data show that selected FAA offices have made increasing use of compliance actions. Total Number of Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement Actions and Number of Compliance Actions Closed for Selected Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 No specific FAA office or entity oversees the Compliance Program. FAA tasked a working group to lead some initial implementation efforts. However, the group no longer regularly discusses the Compliance Program, and no office or entity was then assigned oversight authority. As a result, FAA is not positioned to identify and share best practices or other valuable information across offices. FAA established goals for the Compliance Program—to promote the highest level of safety and compliance with standards and to foster an open, transparent exchange of data. FAA, however, has not taken steps to evaluate if or determine how the program accomplishes these goals. Key considerations for agency enforcement decisions state that an agency should establish an evaluation plan to determine if its enforcement policy achieves desired goals. Three of eight FAA offices have started to evaluate the effects of the Compliance Program, but two offices have not yet started. Three other offices do not plan to do so—in one case, because FAA has not told the office to. FAA officials generally believe the Compliance Program is achieving its safety goals based on examples of its use. However, without an evaluation, FAA will not know if the Compliance Program is improving safety or having other effects—intended or unintended. FAA supports the safety of the U.S. aviation system by ensuring air carriers, pilots, and other regulated entities comply with safety standards. In 2015, FAA announced a new enforcement policy with a more collaborative and problem-solving approach called the Compliance Program. Under the program, FAA emphasizes using compliance actions, for example, counseling or training, to address many violations more efficiently, according to FAA. Enforcement actions such as civil penalties are reserved for more serious violations, such as when a violation is reckless or intentional. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 included a provision that GAO review FAA's Compliance Program. This report examines (1) how FAA implemented and used the Compliance Program and (2) how FAA evaluates the effectiveness of the program. GAO analyzed FAA data on enforcement actions agency-wide and on compliance actions for three selected offices for fiscal years 2012 to 2019 (4 years before and after program start).GAO also reviewed FAA guidance and interviewed FAA officials, including those from the eight offices that oversee compliance with safety standards. GAO is making three recommendations including that FAA assign authority to oversee the Compliance Program and evaluate the effectiveness of the program in meeting goals. FAA concurred with the recommendations. For more information, contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or krauseh@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • 2020 END Wildlife Trafficking Report
    In Climate - Environment - Conservation
    Bureau of Oceans and [Read More…]
  • United States Unseals Superseding Indictment Charging Nationwide Money Laundering Network
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department today announced the unsealing of a superseding indictment charging six individuals with participating in a conspiracy to launder millions of dollars of drug proceeds on behalf of foreign cartels.  This superseding indictment is the result of a nearly four-year investigation into the relationship between foreign drug trafficking organizations and Asian money laundering networks in the United States, China, and elsewhere.
    [Read More…]
  • Disabilities Reported by Prisoners: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016
    In Justice News
    (Publication)
    This brief presents findings based on data collected in the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates, a survey conducted through face-to-face interviews with a national sample of state and federal prisoners across a variety of topics, such as their demographic characteristics, socio-economic background, health, and involvement with the criminal justice system.
    3/30/2021, NCJ 252642, Mariel Alper, Jennifer Bronson, Laura M. Maruschak [Read More…]
  • Residents of Florida, Georgia and North Carolina Indicted for Promoting Tax Fraud Scheme
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Orlando, Florida, returned an indictment April 21, 2021, charging residents of Florida, Georgia and North Carolina with promoting a tax fraud scheme.
    [Read More…]
  • Higher Education: Department of Education Should Further Assess College Access Grant Programs
    In U.S GAO News
    Why This Matters The Department of Education gives grants to schools and organizations that provide disadvantaged students with services to help them attend college. These eight grant programs are collectively known as “TRIO”, named for the original three programs. Congress provides over $1 billion each year to these programs, but Education could do more to understand how well these grants work to help students. Key Takeaways Education could improve the information it has about TRIO programs in two areas: (1) grantee performance data, and (2) program assessments. Schools and organizations report data to Education to show how the TRIO grants they receive have been working. For example, organizations that receive grants to encourage students to complete college report on the numbers and percentages of students who received services and earned degrees.  Education evaluates grantees’ performance using the self-reported data, but has done little to verify the data. Accurate performance data are important because returning grantees can earn points for past performance in the next grant competition—increasing the likelihood that they will receive new grants. Almost 80 percent of recent TRIO grants went to returning grantees.  Therefore, grantees may have an incentive to report a more positive picture than warranted. Officials from an organization representing TRIO grantees told us there is a risk that some grantees may report inaccurate information.  As for assessing the individual TRIO programs, studies of some programs are outdated. In addition, Education has never assessed the effectiveness of three of the seven TRIO programs that serve students, and did not have any new assessments planned as of August 2020. How GAO Did This Study We analyzed data from Education about TRIO grantees and applicants. We also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations and agency documents, and interviewed Education officials and other TRIO stakeholders. Education should take additional steps to ensure the reliability of grantees' performance data and develop a plan for assessing the effectiveness of the TRIO programs that serve students. Education generally agreed with our recommendations. For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • New Jersey Man Indicted for Tax Evasion and Not Filing Tax Returns
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Newark, New Jersey, returned an indictment on April 1, 2021, charging a Springfield man with tax evasion and willful failure to file individual income tax returns.
    [Read More…]
  • Guinea-Bissau Independence Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Estonia Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Operators of California Charity Scam Sentenced to Prison for Mail Fraud Conspiracy and Tax Evasion
    In Crime News
    Geraldine Hill and Clayton Hill, a California couple who operated a charity that purported to provide goods to the needy, were sentenced to prison for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax evasion. Geraldine Hill was sentenced to 15 months in in prison, and Clayton Hill was sentenced to 9 months in prison, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Robert S. Brewer, Jr. for the Southern District of California.
    [Read More…]
  • Statement by Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson on the Pakistani Supreme Court’s Ruling Relating to the Abduction and Murder of Daniel Pearl
    In Crime News
    Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson has released the following statement:
    [Read More…]
  • Maryland Lawyer Charged with Defrauding Financial Institutions and Other Entities to Obtain Control over $12.5 Million of Somali Sovereign Assets
    In Crime News
    A Maryland lawyer was charged in an 11-count indictment for his alleged role in a scheme to fraudulently obtain control of more than $12.5 million that was held by financial institutions on behalf of the Somali government, to improperly take part of those funds for fees and expenses, and to launder a portion of those funds to accounts for the benefit of his co-conspirators.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Brazilian Foreign Minister França
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Federal Telework: Key Practices That Can Help Ensure the Success of Telework Programs
    In U.S GAO News
    The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 (the act) defines telework as a work flexibility arrangement under which an employee performs the duties and responsibilities of their position and other authorized activities from an approved worksite other than the location from which the employee would otherwise work. GAO previously identified key practices in telework-related literature and guidelines that federal agencies should implement in ensuring successful telework programs. These key practices may be grouped under seven categories. Program planning. Consistent with a key practice GAO identified, agencies are required to have a telework managing officer. Other key practices related to planning for a telework program include establishing measurable telework program goals, and providing funding to meet the needs of the telework program. Telework policies. Agencies can help ensure their workforces are telework ready by establishing telework policies and guidance. To ensure that teleworkers are approved on an equitable basis, agencies should establish eligibility criteria, such as suitability of tasks and employee performance. Agencies should also have telework agreements for use between teleworkers and their managers. Performance management. Agencies should ensure that the same performance standards are used to evaluate both teleworkers and nonteleworkers. Agencies should also establish guidelines to minimize adverse impacts that telework can have on nonteleworkers. Managerial support. For telework programs to be successful agencies need support from top management. They also need to address managerial resistance to telework. Training and publicizing. Telework training helps agencies ensure a common understanding of the program. The act requires agencies to provide telework training to employees eligible to telework and to managers of teleworkers. Keeping the workforce informed about the program also helps. Technology. Agencies need to make sure teleworkers have the right technology to successfully perform their duties. To that end, agencies should assess teleworker and organization technology needs, provide technical support to teleworkers, and address access and security issues. Program evaluation. Agencies should develop program evaluation tools and use such tools from the very inception of the program to identify problems or issues. Agencies can then use this information to make any needed adjustments to their programs. GAO has previously reported instances where selected agencies faced challenges implementing telework programs that aligned with key practices. For example, three of four selected agencies did not require review or document their review of ongoing telework agreements. These reviews are important to provide assurance that the agreements reflect and support their current business needs. GAO also previously reported that managers at three of four selected agencies were not required to complete telework training before approving staff's telework agreements. The training is important to ensure managers fully understood agency telework policy and goals before approving or denying requests to telework. Telework offers benefits to federal agencies as well as to the federal workforce. These include improving recruitment and retention of employees, reducing the need for costly office space, and an opportunity to better balance work and family demands. In addition, telework is a tool that agencies can use to help accomplish their missions during periods of disruption, including during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Congress has encouraged federal agencies to expand staff participation in telework, most recently by passing the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 (the act). The act established requirements for executive agencies' telework policies and programs, among other things. This statement provides key practices to help ensure the success of telework programs. The statement is based on GAO's body of work on federal telework issued from July 2003 through February 2017. GAO has recently initiated two reviews related to federal telework. One is examining the extent to which agencies have used telework during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the successes and challenges agencies experienced. The second is reviewing agencies' telework information technology infrastructure. For more information, contact Michelle B. Rosenberg at (202) 512-6806 or rosenbergm@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]