CSPAN - State Department Holds Briefing

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 25, 2025 00:57-01:52 - CSPAN

54:53

State Department Holds Briefing

Participants

Main

tammy bruce

33:43

Appearances

pete hegseth

admin 01:10

Clips

george fishman

00:05

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Thanks, everyone.
		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		On Tuesday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, along with FBI Director Kash Patel and other officials, will offer an assessment of worldwide threats.
		Hosted by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, you can watch it live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3, C-SPAN now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
		Oh, you think this is just a community censor?
		No.
		It's way more than that.
		Comcast is partnering with a thousand community centers to create Wi-Fi-enabled lifts so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything.
		Comcast supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce talked about a range of topics during a press briefing.
		She begins her remarks by outlining Secretary of State Marco Rubio's upcoming meetings with leaders of Caribbean nations.
		The briefing runs 50 minutes.
		Oh, boy, we need to get interested.
		Thank you, ma'am.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		You know what I'd like to do here?
unidentified		I'm going to set this up a different way to where, is this a different?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		No?
unidentified		There.
unidentified		No, it's, sorry.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		It's this.
		It's this one I want.
		Okay, let's see what happens here.
		Is there an edge?
		Yes, there we go.
		Now we're cooking with gas.
		Thank you, everyone.
		How are you?
		I looked up at a couple of my briefings and noticed that I looked a bit too much like Pete Bogman.
		So I got a haircut.
		It's funny when you look at you're so busy and you look around and I thought, oh, this has got to be a little bit better.
		So that's what I've done.
		All right.
		Thank you very much for joining us.
		Another full room, and I appreciate that very much.
		Lots going on, obviously.
		Let's start, though, with an announcement that many of you know already.
		Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to Jamaica, Guyana, and Suriname March 26th through 27th to advance President Trump's foreign policy priorities in the Caribbean.
		While in Jamaica, the Secretary will hold bilateral engagements with heads of state from Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and Haiti.
		Secretary Rubio's engagements with our valued Caribbean partners will promote regional cooperation, which is we're working on, of course, to end illegal immigration, counter transnational organized crime, strengthen regional actions to address Haiti's political and security challenges, and strengthen the United States economic partnership with Caribbean countries.
		And that's my announcement.
		We're going to be doing that starting on Wednesday.
		A number of you are going to be joining us in what for the Americans and people around the world watching.
		We have reporters who are stationed here at the State Department.
		And their coverage, their beat is the State Department, and they even travel with us.
		And that's always fun.
		So I'm looking forward to that once again.
		And we will start, dare I say, with Matt Lee.
unidentified		Okay.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		With the Associated Press.
unidentified		Thank you very much, Tammy.
		And thanks for the trip announcement.
		So over the course of the last day or so, embassies and consulates around the world appeared in what looks like it's a concerted social messaging campaign, have been posting tweets and Facebook accounts,
		some of which are somewhat aggressive and warning people not to come to the United States if they are planning to protest or cause riots or break laws.
		My question is this, because it has always been an offense to not truthfully answer questions on a visa application form, which include your past and what your intents are, what you plan to do in the U.S., it has always been an offense that you can have your visa revoked or deported if you're found to be lying.
		I'm curious why it is that there is this coordinated effort to get this message out now, in some cases using this kind of aggressive language like, you know, you lie to us, you're out, that kind of thing.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think that it's clear that it's a conversation that has not been happening for a while.
		Certain issues are in the news right now.
		It's an important, there's a lot of new things that the world is hearing from a new administration, the Trump administration, which is in office because of its commitment to make America great again, certainly safe again, secure again, more prosperous.
		The Secretary of State, obviously, as you've heard, quite often has remarked on that.
		And part of that is what Americans see and what has been happening over the last several years when it comes to certain violence, certain attitudes, a rise in anti-Semitism, and of course in some public cases, which I won't be speaking on.
		But for citizens of other countries who want to come to America, I think it's reasonable.
		Their own countries, there's certainly some countries which are reminding their citizens that if you're going to be going to the United States, or really the argument could be to any other country, is follow the law, behave yourselves, be a good visitor, and you'll be fine.
		But I think that the nature of any kind of warning or reminder, as it should be, as you noted, is appropriate considering the nature of the things we've been reminding people about, which is a visa is not an entitlement.
		A visa and a green card are not birthrights.
		These are privileges.
		You're granted them because of what you present to the United States in trying to get it.
		Consular officers also talk with people and they ask you questions about why you want to come.
		Every sovereign nation in the world has an interest in controlling who comes in, knowing who's coming into their country, what their intentions are.
		We've learned this over the last several decades about the importance of security at points of entry.
		The world knows it, and so do we.
		And it is a good reminder.
		And we look forward to people taking it seriously.
unidentified		All right.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Andrea Mitchell.
unidentified		Thank you very much, Tammy.
		I know the administration has always been concerned about operational security for military actions and others, things that are classified.
		There has been an unprecedented, to my experience, breach of operational security by a public dissemination on signal of plans for the Houdi attacks and discussions about those plans that included in, it has been confirmed by the National Security Council.
		These included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, on this signal chat over a course of several days.
		And we should note that Mr. Goldberg did not publicize any of the classified members, CIA people who were on this chat, nor any of the classified information on the ultimate day, two hours before the attacks took place.
		He thought he was being punked.
		that it was some sort of a trap, but eventually notified the White House about this.
		And the White House has confirmed that it's authentic.
		Secretary Rubio was part of all of these conversations.
		First of all, why was the cabinet secretaries and the National Security Cabinet discussing a potential military operation on Signal, which is a public app?
		And why didn't they notice a phone number that was not part of their group?
		And how concerned is the Secretary about the implications of this?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, I have two very short things to say to you.
		First, is that we will not comment on the Secretary's deliberative conversations.
		And secondly, that you should contact the White House.
unidentified		But in this regard, this was a very extensive series of conversations involving a very important military action.
		And the Secretary of State is the leader of foreign policy.
		Shouldn't he have an opinion about this?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, from this podium, I'm not going to comment, and never would I comment in any framework the Secretary's deliberative conversations in any regard.
unidentified		All right.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Are you concerned about the twice, and I appreciate your persistence?
		That's why you're who you are.
		But I won't be commenting on that particular framework.
		All right, Daphne, go ahead.
unidentified		Time to Russia, Ukraine.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I wish you wouldn't.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		But yes, of course.
unidentified		Trump said today that territory was being discussed.
		So I just wanted to follow up on some comments that Witkoff made over the weekend about Crimea, Donbass, and regions annexed by Russia.
		He said that the question is, will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories?
		Is it the administration's view that Russia has a legitimate claim to these regions?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		What I can tell you, first of all, of course, is I'm not going to speculate.
		Once again, because of the approach of this administration, there are a lot of diplomatic talks going on.
		There's a lot of summits happening.
		There's a lot of conversations happening.
		The supermajority of which I cannot comment on to you about those kinds of discussions or the commentary from which they may or may not have been gleaned from.
		What we do know, and I would refer back to the nature of what we're trying to do here, and what we've said is first and foremost in our mind.
		There's one thing in front of us that everyone is doing, and that is to secure the peace of that region, of those two countries, which more than even in the region, the entire world.
		And that's the singular thing that is being worked on right now in Saudi Arabia.
		It is the singular thing that the president has been focused on.
		It is what the Secretary has been working on pretty much from day one, which is, what are we in?
		The ninth week at this point.
		And dramatic changes have already occurred.
		Fabulous changes have occurred because of the focus.
		And there's really no other way to do it.
		You've got to have a dynamic that you're going to convince people that they can embrace and agree to.
		And the only way to do that is to stay with a framework that doesn't change, doesn't morph where there's not distractions that you led away from the focus on what it is we're trying to accomplish.
		So that's what we're dealing with in this regard.
		And I think just a reminder that until there is a ceasefire, a full ceasefire, that's when, as the President has noted and certainly the Secretary, that until there's a ceasefire, that's when we can then discuss the differences in what proceeds after that when it comes to an enduring peace.
unidentified		Thanks, Tammy.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Can I switch to the Middle East?
		Do we have any more Ukraine, Russia?
		Yes, sir.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you, Tammy.
		Just to follow up on the question my colleague asked.
		I understand you don't want to comment on these comments.
		Some of them, you know, are reflecting Russian viewpoint.
		Ukrainians do appreciate this administration's effort to solve the problem, but they want to trust you.
		When they hear what we heard during that interview, how do you want to build that trust in Ukraine or something?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, again, I think that this is why I urge people to look at the nature of what we're accomplishing here and what the end result is.
		This is not a TV show.
		This is people working to get to an end result that everyone agrees with.
		There's no one in the world who wants any of this to continue.
		There's the people involved, the innocent people on the ground, the world itself, we know all of this affects each one of us.
		Multiple countries are involved in one fashion or another.
		And this is about getting to an end point that the world is agreed upon and that all of us agree upon.
		And we can talk about other interviews or what someone might say.
		But the fact is, even when the Secretary has been asked about whether he trusts Putin, the fact is, and I just go back to his point when asked about that.
		This isn't about trust or who you're dealing with and whether or not you like them or you don't or what that dynamic is.
		The question is, what do you end with?
		Is it something that makes the difference in what everyone wants?
		Is it what we all agree on and what is going to get us to that North Star of making sure that the slaughter stops?
		You know, there's, again, we still deal with every day, even with this work.
		People that were alive yesterday are not alive today.
		People that are alive today are not going to be alive tomorrow.
		And the focus has to remain in that framework.
		And the only thing that brings us to that point are the conversations that are happening, the technical discussions now happening in Saudi Arabia, conversations between presidents and maneuverings and negotiations and diplomatic conversations that get us to a point of peace.
		That is the only thing, when we think about the next day, that matters.
		And that takes us to that point.
unidentified		Your reaction to attack to Sumi region this afternoon.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry to the one sir.
unidentified		The Sumi region of Ukraine got attacked.
		They targeted presidential buildings, hospitals.
		Over 90 people got injured, 73 of them are children.
		Any reaction to that, please?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		You know, all of us decry the impact.
		This is why we do the work we do on civilians.
		And it is why we continue to work for the ceasefire.
		And what the negotiations in Saudi are right now is to get that commitment and to get that done.
		So that's why we're doing what we do, because of the results like that, that in any war are problematic and heartbreaking.
		And we want to stop and reverse.
		So that's the point of why we're doing what we're doing right now.
		Yes.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Following up on this story that happened last week about the termination of a grant to the Yale Initiative research initiative and trying to track down Ukrainian children that have been taken by Russia, you mentioned last week in this room that the data exists, it's not been deleted.
		Correct.
		We also got a comment from the State Department saying that the department does not hold the data for the conflict observatory.
		The data resides on a platform owned by MITRE as part of the program.
		And we were referred to MITRE.
		In terms of evidence of where these children have gone and when you're dealing with courts of law, is this data something that even if it's sitting somewhere on someone else's server like MITRE, is it overseen or controlled by the U.S. government in terms of making sure that it's not being tampered with?
		And is there a concern that with that particular initiative, the grant to that initiative terminated, is there a concern that there's a delay in the work that these researchers were doing in terms of like more of a search and rescue of these particular 30,000 children now being hindered?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, as you noted, and I will confirm again, is that the data exists.
		What I will say to your question is that we know it is secure.
		And that is all I'll discuss about the nature of where it sits and where it is.
		It's secure.
		I will also mention something I'd mentioned to you actually earlier, which is that this data and this kind of a program, the grant has been stopped, of course, but it doesn't mean just because something has changed, as this has, that it disappears or stops or becomes something that we can't use.
		So I would just remind you that there's a variety of dynamics that are occurring when it comes to the world knowing about those missing children.
		The nature of, I know, the President, President Trump's concern about those missing children, the world is concerned, and the fact, to say the least, Ukraine has been advocating for this.
		They've been passionate about saving their nation and certainly getting those children back from Russia.
		And I think that this is when we think about now the nature of the negotiations or certainly the conversations that is part of those conversations.
		And it's something that we all hope will be resolved sooner than later.
		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Are we ready to move on to the Middle East or you?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I think we should.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Sure, let's do it.
unidentified		So two topics for you.
		I'll squeeze him in back to back.
		Mahmoud Khalil, there was a DLJ brief filing with the court regarding his case.
		And one of the assertions in there was that he had failed to mention part of his resume, part of his history.
		And one of the things that DOJ brought up was his work with UNRWA.
		So I know you can't comment on a particular visa case.
		I'm not going to ask you.
		I know the drill.
		But in a larger perspective, does the State Department now look upon work with UNRWA as a potential negative when applying for a green card or other visa?
		That's question one.
		Question two.
		On Friday, Dorothy Shea, who heads up on an interim basis the U.S. mission to the UN, called Security Council Resolution 2334 a mistake.
		It's been, for the most part, the defining policy around settlements for a while now, other than the first Trump admin.
		The spokesman for the mission told me there's been no change in policy.
		Her statement doesn't reflect a change in policy.
		But obviously, she calls it a mistake.
		It means something.
		What is the position right now of the Trump admin and the State Department on Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line?
		Are we going back to the Pompeo Doctrine?
		Is it going to be used as leverage to expand the Abraham Accords, which Vice President Vance brought up today?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		So much speculation.
		I've just got to get my speculation book out.
		You know, I'm not going to speculate.
		I'm not going to guess what's in the minds of diplomats and diplomats are involved, including an ambassador and her statements.
		I'm not going to speculate on any of that, what they mean, or what other leaders are going to do or not do.
		And I appreciate, we all have questions about certain things.
		What I can say, well, now I have to say what I can say about what I can't say regarding your first question, is that you mentioned, of course, that there are court filings, and you mentioned the detail of what you say is in a court filing.
		I'm not going to expand on that either.
		So, what I can say in general is what the Secretary has said, what the President has said, what I have said on numerous occasions, and brought up here just a little bit ago as well, when it comes to the nature of messaging regarding visas and what the United States expects, and I think what every nation expects when someone is knocking on the door saying, can we come in?
		America's answer to that has usually been a resounding yes, please do, using the regular legal system to do it.
		But the reason that system works is because there's order to it, and we have expectations to what it is you say to us.
		And if you have an order and expectations and they're never enforced or it doesn't matter, and other people see that, it means that none of the laws mean anything, the regulations don't mean anything, and you're not even really a nation.
		You're a nation effectively without borders and controls.
		And no nation operates in that fashion.
		So it's not, again, certainly not commenting on any particular filing or any particular case.
		If you lie in your efforts to come to the United States to get a visa for any reason or for a green card, maybe there haven't been repercussions or we haven't done things properly in the past.
		A lot of things have changed with the election of Donald Trump, as the American people have said.
		What has happened in the past is now unacceptable.
		We see the impact on people's lives, everybody's lives, and we now it's not anything new.
		We want to have the order back.
		We want to have the rules, the expectations, the values back to how we make our decisions.
		So it is an important message.
		It's a normal message.
		It's a reasonable message.
		And it's important, and especially for those when there is certainly a court argument or if you have lied, if you've misrepresented what you were going to do here, there has to be a response to that for a nation to be able to be taken seriously by its own people who rely on it to keep them safe.
		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
		Hi, changing subject.
		I'm sorry.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Clearly, hold on now.
		So keep that in mind.
		So now, Nadia, where were you going?
		Hold on.
		All of you, you're right here in front of me.
		I'm willing to stay here as long as I need to.
		Yes, ma'am.
		Nadia.
unidentified		I have two questions, but I want to follow up on the application form, just to be clear.
unidentified		So you're saying that Mahmoud Khalil has lied on the application.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		No, I never commented on his case.
		I never said that he did at all.
		I'm saying that if anyone coming here, when you're filing, if you're trying to get a visa or anything else, I never spoke about him and what he did or did not do.
unidentified		Yes.
		Fair enough.
		But my question to you is, for example, the evidence was taken against him that he was a member of UNRWA.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Nadia, I have to tell you, I'm not going to remark at all on a particular case.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		It's not going to happen.
unidentified		Let me try again, different way.
		Do you think three strikes here?
		Believe that if somebody is a member of UNRWA, of the UN organization, and they did not disclose that if they apply for a visa, if somebody was coming, since UNRWA is not a terrorist organization, are they denied a visa?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		This is related to a court filing regarding a specific case, including also we don't talk about visas and the specific dynamic there.
		I'm not going to speculate or confirm or not confirm any dynamic that belongs to consular officers, to laws, to court filings that occur, or to the visa process for individuals.
		I'm not going to do that.
		And so I'm sorry, I would love to be able to answer your question, but I can't.
		Yes.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Has Israel briefed the United States on its plans for a renewed ground operation?
unidentified		And is this something that the U.S. supports a massive ground operation into Gaza?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Again, if there was a conversation about that, it is not something that I'm going to share the details with anybody anywhere.
		It's not personal.
		I'm not going to comment or speculate or anything in that regard when it comes to something as serious as negotiations in an area where there's a conflict, that we are working every day to stop.
		And we have been the lead in the ceasefire aspects.
		We've been the lead in bridges to the next steps.
		And we are dealing with a terrorist organization that cannot remain at all in that region because of what they do.
		They then continue the suffering.
		And there is just, it's the simplest thing in the world.
		Hamas could release the hostages, which they still have, and the bodies of those that they've killed, and they could lay down their arms, and the suffering would end.
		All of this would end.
		And the questions come back, understandably, to the State Department, to Marco Rubio, to envoys, to people trying to get it to stop about one thing, or why haven't you done this, or would you do this?
		It is Hamas has one step it could take, and the carnage could end.
		And I appreciate what you're asking, but I have certain limits in what I can express when it comes to the way decisions get made.
		But what we do know is that decisions have been getting made that have stopped the fighting, that have given us the first glimmer of hope in ages.
		And we're going to continue that kind of work because we do care and we are determined to get peace.
		And we're the closest we've been in most areas than we've been in ages.
		And that needs to continue.
		Yes, sir, in the back.
		Not at this moment.
		Yes, sir.
		In the back.
unidentified		I have a question on Ukraine and the Euroan, if I can go back a little bit.
		My first question is: on which level the European Union will be involved in the talk in Saudi Arabia, if they will be involved.
		And the second one, if you can give us some more glimpse of the talk, what can you, like something that you can share with us, like related to the ceasefire, the Black Sea, or the part of, you know, are we talking about part of Ukraine that's going to be going to be given to Russia or other left to Kiev?
		Can you give us a little more?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'd already mentioned before in being asked about comments on issues after a ceasefire.
		There is one thing we're working on, that's a ceasefire.
		I have nothing to say about what comes after a ceasefire, which has to be manifested in full.
		And we are close to that.
		This is what's fascinating.
		We've never been closer, a breath away, from a full ceasefire.
		And then full stop, then a discussion about an enduring peace.
		It's doable.
		Humanity has done it in the past.
		We can do it again, but it's never, this is the time where there has to be new ideas, where this dynamic has to stop.
		What I can tell you in general, you mentioned the Black Sea, is we do have negotiating teams, of course.
		They're meeting in Saudi Arabia to discuss broadening the ceasefire to the Black Sea on the way to the full ceasefire, which is always the prize.
		That's the prize right now.
		There's no other prize to fully restore peaceful commercial activity.
		The Black Sea, of course, is key to that.
		We are continuing contact with both Russia and Ukraine.
		We're committed to continuing our work to bridge that gap.
		As the Secretary said repeatedly, both sides will have to make compromises as we are working in this ceasefire range.
		President Zelensky has agreed on a partial ceasefire against energy infrastructure and has reiterated his willingness to adopt a full ceasefire.
		And there's certainly the aspect of possibility of, well, these situations, these technical negotiations are going on now that we hope to see where the parties have landed.
		And our work is about coming to an agreement about how we're going to make this happen.
		But the Black Sea is now directly discussed.
		And let's hope we have some success here.
		Yes, sir.
		And is the gentleman here?
unidentified		I have a couple of questions on Gaza.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		And you are, sir?
unidentified		Shiabratansi, Al Jazeera English.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Terrific.
		How do you do?
		All right.
unidentified		Nice to meet you.
		Reuters reports that the U.S. and Hamas have accepted a ceasefire.
		A ceasefire, I'm told.
		A ceasefire proposal from Egypt, but Israel has yet to respond.
		Is that your understanding?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I don't have an understanding about what might be negotiations, nor am I going to speculate or guess.
		We, of course, things we do know is that the Egyptians care about this situation.
		There is the Arab Plan.
		We know that has been discussed.
		We know how the Arab Plan has not met the requirements of the Trump administration in a couple of instances.
		And when it comes to certainly Gazans and their safety in this process.
		So, no, I don't have a comment on that.
unidentified		The Israelis have killed two more journalists, Hossam Shabbat of Al Jazeera Mubasha, Mohammed Mansoor of Palestine.
		Today, that brings the number to 208.
		Each one was individually targeted.
		The IDF says they used extensive intelligence gathering and precise munitions.
		Shabbat killed in his car, Mansoor in his house.
		The Committee to Protect Journalists has once again noted that the deliberate targeted killing of journalists is a war crime.
		Do you have any comment?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I would say that every single thing that's happening is a result of Hamas and its choices to drag that region down into a level of suffering that has been excruciating and has caused innumerable deaths.
		And of course, their reaction on October 7th when there was a ceasefire and people were living in some relative peace.
		They decided to break that with an atrocity that was just certainly the most Jews killed in a single framework than during the Holocaust.
		And we also, I can tell you, we stand by Israel and its needs as it defends itself through this period of time, as we also work with them so that they don't need to defend themselves from the barbarity of an entity that has destroyed lives for generations and continues to.
		So for everyone who has, for everyone, so many people who do so many jobs and who've lived different lives, and the children and the babies who didn't have a chance to seek their fortunes or their life dreams because of the barbarity of certain people who think that murder is the only way to move through life.
		Is it a war crime?
		I'm certainly, you know, I'm not going to stand here and declare what's a war crime and what isn't.
		But what we do know is a crime.
		It's the mass slaughter of any individuals, certainly the targeting of people simply because of who they are.
		That Jew hatred is a signal regarding the barbarity and the nature of who it is you're dealing with.
		The world knows that if you don't stop it and don't confront it as it bears its ugly face, it will not stop.
		And that is part of what this world now has decided, that when we say never again, we mean never again.
		Behind the idea here, yes, sir, go ahead.
		Thank you.
unidentified		Thank you so much, Tammy.
		My question on the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and the Popular Mobilization Forces PMF.
		The Iraqi parliament remained deadlook over a law regarding the Iranian backage groupers with political division.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		And I'm sorry, when you look down, it's interesting.
		I know you all have microphones in front of you.
		I can't hear you.
		So can you just repeat that again so I can answer you properly?
unidentified		Yeah, my question is about the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and the PMF.
		The Iraqi parliament remains deadlook over a law regarding the Iranian-backed groups with political division.
		And the Washington Institute here in DC arguing that the law is less about union reform, but it's more about securing their role and their political and financial advantage for the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq.
		But my question is that, how this administration assessed the role of the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq.
		And the second question, there were reports circulating that this administration, including State Department, has requested the Iraqi government to dissolve the militia groups and the PMF.
		Have you made such a request?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I can tell you a few things here.
		First, to strengthen Iraq's sovereignty, the government of Iraq must ensure it has command and control of all security forces within its borders, to include the PMF.
		These forces must respond to Iraq's commander-in-chief and not to Iran.
		We are also concerned that these Iran-aligned groups within the PMF, including designated foreign terrorist organizations, engage in violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq.
		We continue to urge the Iraqi government to rein in these groups and hold them accountable for breaking Iraqi law.
		The president has no higher priority than the safety of U.S. personnel, and he has made it clear that the United States will defend itself, its personnel, and its interests.
		So I hope that answers your question.
unidentified		Thank you.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Saeed, please.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Thank you, Tammy.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Yes, of course.
unidentified		I have a couple of questions.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I'm not surprised.
unidentified		Thank you.
		One on Gaza and one on the West Bank.
		On Gaza, I want to ask you about the humanitarian situation.
		It's been determined that over 97% of Gaza's underground water is unfit for human consumption and it's being else.
		Are there, I mean, aside from possibly talks for a ceasefire, no ceasefire, and so on, are there any talks that you're aware of to get the humanitarian aid going, especially the water going?
		And second, I want to ask you on the West Bank, but I'll wait until you answer.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, this is why we want, and we're very disturbed when Hamas did not perform to make sure that the ceasefire could continue, that they did not do what they said they would do.
		So we know, of course, when it comes to the groundwater, of course, this is a crisis.
		It's exacerbated by the fact that you have a terrorist group that just doesn't care.
		You know, when you think about the nature, we're concerned about groundwater.
		We know wherever you are and whoever you are about what makes life possible.
		And yet you are dealing with an entity controlling and had controlled that area that not only is not caring about the nature of a quality life, they don't care about life at all.
		Their reason for being is to use human beings as human shields and to murder and to rape to just create a kind of suffering that is unimaginable for civilized human beings.
		So, of course, we care about this.
		This is why this administration has been determined and has been focused on changing that environment so it doesn't repeat for every generation.
		There's a certain point where all of us in this room will be gone from this planet.
		And your children or the people you know and your grandchildren will be sitting in these chairs.
		If we can, as our generations, can try to please, there'll always be problems.
		But with what we've learned over the last several centuries, certainly the last century, and the beginning of this one, is that it cannot continue.
		So that they can have other conversations and maybe even better ones.
		But that has got to be what we focus on.
		And I think that it's, I don't want to say it's not a given, but every time I see you, Said, you ask me questions and I answer you in a similar way.
		And I believe I like you.
		You've gotten to know me a tiny bit.
		Is that I am serious when I say these things to you and say them to you from my experience working in this building with the people who've devoted their lives to dealing with these issues.
		People, I've mentioned the career people before, the bureaus that are in this building that work on the issues in the regions, certainly the people who are voted in by the American people.
		And it is every day, maybe I don't know what happened before in the last 50 years that makes it still an issue now.
		We are serious, beyond serious, that it's going to end.
		So I'm going to leave from there because I do, through the rest of the day and through this briefing, I end up answering, I think, many of your questions.
		And we're going to continue on.
		All right, now we're waiting patiently.
		Thank you, sir.
unidentified		Thanks, Tammy.
		Since this is my first briefing with you, Leon Gruneau, AFB.
		Excellent.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, sir.
unidentified		Appreciate it.
unidentified		I have two unrelated questions.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		No, no way.
		Unrelated.
		All right.
unidentified		Unrelated, yeah.
		The first is I'd like to go back to an issue which I think is important, which is U.S. aid and humanitarian aid in general.
		I know you've been asked about this, and you've said that the administration wanted to go after waste and fraud and they did.
		Yeah, yes.
		There's been many, many dire warnings today from UN AIDS Agency, last week from the UNICEF, the children agency, also last week from the UNHCR, the Refugee Agency.
		Basically, the bottom line is: okay, you cut funding, you do this, you do that, but it's having and will have a major impact because it's disrupted many, many programs, especially from the UN and all that.
		So, and by dismantling USAID, who are experienced in delivering aid, and there were thousands of people doing it, who is actually doing now the control, coordination, and distribution of whatever aid is left at State Department.
		Are you equipped for that?
		And second, I mean, related to this is what is your general comment as to these very dire warnings from very serious people about the millions of children or people who are born to suffer.
		And then unrelated question afterwards.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		All right, and thank God because I was going to want to answer this one certainly first.
		And I know you haven't been here because we have been talking about this a lot.
		So I'm going to say something that everyone has heard in one fashion or another, which is a reminder.
		that just because a structure has changed or stopped does not mean that the nature of our work in that issue has stopped.
		That because a certain building might be named something else or a certain program has ended or that a certain department is over or made smaller does not mean that that's the reflection of our commitment to foreign aid or to helping the world.
		That is pretty much what America's done from the start and we continue to do because it matters.
		But it will only work when we understand whether or not it is working to accomplish the thing that the people running it say it would accomplish.
		If the money that is spent is actually, again, according to Samantha Power on her way out as the lead of USAID last year, said 7 to 10% of the money afforded to programs through her entity only gets to the people that need it, making a person wonder, and this is a new debate, of where does the other 90% go.
		So it is the height of irresponsibility to give people hope with spending billions of dollars and it's not even reaching the people that you've told that it is supposed to go to.
		They don't see it.
		And you don't see the world getting better, do you?
		You see different things going on, but our expense of foreign aid increases and you'd think if the foreign aid process was to work, the need for foreign aid would decrease.
		But it doesn't.
		It gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
		The Secretary has called it a foreign aid industrial complex, I think.
		And there is so much money that what has happened now is in fact a reform of this framework to make sure that if we're going to spend, as we have and will likely do in some fashion, billions of dollars to help the world, damn it, those billions of dollars better help the world.
		That is the basic standard.
		So there is disruption.
		We understand that.
		But it doesn't mean everything has come to a halt.
		It doesn't mean it ever did or that it will in the future.
		Our commitment to foreign aid remains.
		And just because how it used to look, what it was before is gone, it means that it's going to just look differently.
		And it will be more efficient.
		And the waste, abuse, and fraud, which in the beginning of your question you said in a little bit of a snarky manner, I sometimes am snarky as well, that that was like what was said is that we wanted to deal with.
		Why else, I can say this for this administration, I think for this State Department, why else are we here?
		For us, it's to fix this thing.
		It's to make Really work.
		It's to make it work for people and to fulfill the promise of what we're supposed to be able to do and not just have the facade because of a building or because of giant grants and money.
		So it is, it's disruptive.
		Again, foreign aid is not going to stop, not by any means.
		And the form in which it takes and what we expect for it to align with what's important to the United States, it is the taxpayer dollars.
		What's important to us has made us the best country in the world and everybody wants to come here and that we are able to help the world because that's what this nation is and that's going to continue but it wouldn't be able to continue if this nation did not look seriously at where the money was going and the amount of waste and fraud that has existed.
unidentified		Who is actually dealing with it at the State Department?
unidentified		You have the manpower.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		There is State Department, the United States government.
		It is.
		It's a very big entity.
		And there are people not just, I talk about this with the ceasefires and the negotiations and foreign aid and everything else.
		Because you don't see it and it's not in front of you doesn't mean it's not happening.
		It is an operation around the world that is the biggest in humankind.
		So I'm going to move on from that because coming now to each of the briefings would be good because you would have heard these answers beforehand.
		Yes, Andrea, let's get to some people in the back who've had their hands up.
		Glasses on, please.
		Yes, sir.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		I have a question back to the West Bank.
		I'm wondering if you've seen reports that the director, co-director of the Oscar-winning film No Other Land was just beaten by settlers and taken from the ambulance from which he was carrying.
		If not on that particular, you know, there's been a spike in settler violence in the West Bank over the last 15 months.
		How concerned is this State Department about what we're seeing in the West Bank?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm going to check any loss of life or people being harmed, certainly we decry.
		And that's something I'm going to want us to go back and check on.
		And I'll do that.
		But obviously, how concerned are we about to say that?
		When it comes to the issue of violence, I think this State Department, this administration, and as I've been working here, and certainly as an American in general, it's obvious, without my going through a soliloquy again, that we care very much about that and want it to end.
		Yes, ma'am, in the back of purple.
unidentified		Thank you so much.
		On Israel, Aishanur Ezge, Aishanur Ezge, who is an American Turkish activist, was killed by an Israeli soldier on September 6th in the occupied West Bank while attending a protest.
		More than six months have passed since the U.S. government called on Israel to investigate her killing, but there has been no action and accountability since until this date.
		So I'm wondering if the administration foreseeing justice and accountability for Aishanur and other Americans who were killed by Israel, and would you support an independent investigation into her killing as demanded by Aishanur's family?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		You know, again, because of the world we live in, often I have to say we decry the harming or the injury or the killing of anyone.
		But when it comes to the nature of what Israel is doing, obviously I'm not going to speak to the nature of the choices they've had to make in what is clearly one of the most difficult times in their history, in the history of everyone in the region.
		But what I will do, let's go back, let's make sure we follow up, Heather, on that particular issue, and we'll take it from there.
		That's where we're going to go.
		And in the back, did I hear JFK?
		Because interestingly, we haven't brought that up yet, so let's give that a try here.
		JFK.
		So who keeps saying JFK?
unidentified		Excellent, thank you.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		In the back, all right, let's do it.
unidentified		JFK assassination is obviously not in the news, and Jefferson Morley of JFK Thax was on Bill O'Reilly's show analyzing some of the documents that the Trump administration has released.
		One of the revelations that he discussed was the fact that James Engleton, the CIA counterintelligence chief, had relied on Israelis as part of his intelligence gathering operations, which included monitoring Oswald prior to the assassination.
		As you may be aware, JFK in the summer of 1963 was deeply concerned with Israel acquiring nuclear weapons.
		He had sent a series of letters to Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister, demanding that Israel allow inspectors.
		Ben-Gurion resigned just when he was pressed on the issue.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I got something I can say to this.
unidentified		I got a question for you.
		Israel continued stalling the inspections in JFK and was, of course, assassinated in November.
		Every president since has adopted Israel's policy of refusing to acknowledge the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal.
george fishman ▲ ● ▼		My question to you is, will this administration finally do so?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Boy, that was, we went from JFK from, and then to now Israel's nuclear arsenal.
		No, I understand.
		I understand.
		Here's what I will tell you about the JFK files.
		There's about 80, excuse me, sir.
		Thank you.
		About 80,000 pages of unredacted records related to the Kennedy assassination are currently being released, and I think they've finished at this point by order of President Trump.
		We know that also, as I've been asked before, if there was any other material anywhere, this is it.
		This is all the material.
		It's out.
		And again, unredacted.
		And so that's good news.
		For my generation, this is also good news.
		Certainly as you grow up with that kind of a dynamic that happened in this country.
		And now, of course, we happily can say that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is contributing to the nature of our nation and making a difference as well.
		As far as the speculation and conspiracy theories about what was happening regarding that assassination and in the decades that followed, I have no comment for you, and nor am I going to speculate or comment on that.
		But I appreciate you being here and asking that at the end.
		Yes, sir.
		Go ahead, please.
		Thank you so much.
unidentified		Go ahead.
unidentified		Bangladesh.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Please, please.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Let's keep going.
unidentified		Thank you, Temi.
		On Bangladesh, I have two questions.
		Bangladesh Army Chief warns of imminent Islamist extremist attacks on Bangladesh.
		Given the U.S. commitment to counterterrorism, what step is the U.S. taking to prevent Bangladesh from becoming another Afghanistan?
		Temi, I have a second question.
		How is the U.S. government addressing the unlawful imprisonment of journalists under Mohammed Iun's government and working to uphold press freedom in Bangladesh?
		Thank you.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Yes, well, with the questions that we deal with a lot, I think that we go back to what's most important in the nature of how we handle other countries, what we expect of them, if we consider them our friends, the diplomatic scenario.
		Fortunately, we have an administration and a Secretary of State who's completely committed to diplomatic resolutions, to face-to-face conversations with our friends around the world, and certainly the impact, hopefully, of our strength and our president, who is known for taking things seriously, to know that we expect every country, certainly Bangladesh and others, to say the least,
		to follow the rules of human rights and to be Cognizant and fair regarding the behavior and what their own citizens expect from their government.
		So I think that's a North Star for any nation.
		And I'm going to move on.
		We'll get one more in here.
		Yes, right here.
		Right here.
unidentified		I had a Second Lady Usha Vance planned trip to Greenland later this week.
		Greenland's prime minister called the visit a sign of American aggression and said that we're now at a level where it can no way be characterized as a harmless visit from a politician's wife.
		Do you have a response to those comments?
		And do you see the relationship between the U.S. and Greenland as having deteriorated over the course of the past couple months?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, I can tell you about the Second Lady's trip, so we'll start there.
		As the White House has announced, Second Lady Ushavance will travel to Greenland with her son and a United States delegation to visit historical sites, learn about Greenlandic heritage, and attend Greenland's national dog sled race.
		The delegation will depart for Greenland on Thursday, March 27th and return to the United States on Saturday, March 29th.
		And when it comes to, I think, the details, the relationship between those two countries in particular, I would refer you to the White House for that.
unidentified		All right.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I think that's it.
unidentified		All right.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		We're good.
		We're good.
		Thank you, everyone.
		I'm glad.
		I'm glad we got as much covered as we did.
		And no doubt, I'll be back on Friday, so we will be here Friday.
		And I'll see you then.
		Have a great rest of your day.
unidentified		Thank you.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		On Tuesday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, along with FBI Director Kash Patel and other officials, will offer an assessment of worldwide threats.
		Hosted by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, you can watch it live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3, C-SPAN now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
		Democracy.
		It isn't just an idea, it's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
		Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth talked about an article in The Atlantic Magazine, in which a reporter details how he was included in a group text in which top officials debated U.S. national security and military plans for bombing Yemen.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		this is a trip that we had I'll tell you something, this is a trip we've had circled on the calendar from the beginning.
unidentified		Indo-Pacific, shifting priorities to make sure we're deterring threats in the future.
unidentified		President Trump's been focused on that.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		Reestablishing the warrior ethos, rebuilding our military, and ultimately reestablishing deterrence is critically important.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		And so we're out here to talk to our commanders and, more importantly, meet with the troops all across the Indo-Pacific and then our allies and partners too.
unidentified		We're going to be a critical part of ensuring the future in this region is free.
		And so we're glad to be here.
		It's a beautiful day.
		Had a full workday on the plane.
		Now we've got a full workday here as well and looking forward to it.
		One question.
		Can you share how your information about war plans against the Houthis in Yemen was shared with a journalist in the Atlantic?
		And were those details classified?
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		So you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again to include the, I don't know, the hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia, or the fine people on both sides hoax, or suckers and losers hoax.
unidentified		So this is a guy that peddles in garbage.
		This is what he does.
		I would love to comment on the Houthi campaign.
		because of the skill and courage of our troops.
		I've monitored it very closely from the beginning.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		And you see, we've been managing four years of deferred maintenance under the Trump administration.
unidentified		Our troops, our sailors were getting shot at as targets.
unidentified		Our ships couldn't sail through.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		And when they did shoot back, it was purely defensively or at shacks in Yemen.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		President Trump said, no more.
unidentified		We will reestablish deterrence.
unidentified		We will open freedom of navigation.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		And we will ultimately decimate the Houthis, which is exactly what we're doing as we speak from the beginning, overwhelmingly.

▲