CSPAN - State Department Spokesperson Holds Briefing

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 22, 2025 18:25-19:03 - CSPAN

37:53

State Department Spokesperson Holds Briefing

Participants

Main

tammy bruce

27:22

Appearances

Clips

ronald reagan

r 00:24

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Home decor and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan and every purchase helps support our non-profit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including MIDCO.
		Where are you going?
		Or maybe a better question is, how far do you want to go?
		And how fast do you want to get there?
		Now we're getting somewhere.
		So let's go.
		Let's go faster.
		Let's go further.
		Let's go beyond.
		Midco supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Coming up, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce briefing reporters on the department's plan to eliminate programs that are not aligned with the Trump administration's agenda.
		Her comments follow Secretary of State Marco Rubio's announcement that the agency would abolish offices that were deemed to be redundant.
		The briefing is just under 35 minutes.
		Hi, everybody.
		Hello, sir.
		Oh, thank you, ma'am.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Welcome aboard, everyone.
		Thank you for being here.
		I know a few people are doing some hits, so we might have some people coming in.
		Appreciate you being here.
		All right, an announcement, I think rather an important one for certainly all of you here and everyone watching at home and certainly everyone here at the State Department.
		Welcome aboard.
		Today, under President Trump's leadership and at the direction of Secretary Rubio, we are reversing decades of bloat and bureaucracy at the State Department.
		The Secretary announced a reorganization plan to build an America-first State Department to meet the challenges of a new era.
		He has issued the following statement on the plan, which you can get at State Department DEPT, or how is it .gov?
unidentified		State.gov.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		State.gov is where you can get this statement and links to other information on what we're about to discuss.
		We are facing tremendous challenges across the globe to deliver on President Trump's America-first foreign policy.
		We must make the State Department great again.
		In its current form, the department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition.
		Over the past 15 years, the department's footprint has had unprecedented growth and costs have soared.
		But far from seeing a return to investment, taxpayers have seen less effective and less efficient diplomacy.
		The sprawling bureaucracy created a system more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America's core national interests.
		That is why today Secretary Rubio is announcing a comprehensive reorganization plan that will bring the department into the 21st century.
		This approach will empower the department from the ground up, from the bureaus to the embassies.
		Region-specific functions will be consolidated to increase functionality.
		Redundant offices will be removed.
		And non-statutory programs that are misaligned with America's core national interests will cease to exist.
		Under President Trump's leadership, we have a commander-in-chief committed to putting America and Americans first.
		As his Secretary of State, Secretary Rubio announces that he is in fact confident a reformed State Department will meet the moment and help make our country great once again.
		So the bottom line here is that these sweeping changes will empower our talented diplomats to put America and Americans first.
		It is also, I will remind, for those of you who are in the bullpen and those watching at home, as I've mentioned before, there's a number of journalists and organizations that are a member of our bullpen.
		They're people who cover the State Department and work here in the building.
		And we had a discussion earlier today with some more background on this.
		That also for State Department personnel, everyone in the building will be receiving, of course, this statement.
		And there's an opinion piece that is available from the Secretary at the new State Department Substack link.
		And that is statedept.substack.com.
		Is that it?
		Go there and it will ask if you want to subscribe.
unidentified		You don't have to.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		You can just click on the title and you'll get additional commentary from the Secretary in this regard.
		Also, for everyone in this building, there is additional information.
		There is a fact sheet.
		There are frequently asked questions.
		There's an additional statement from the Deputy Secretary Landau.
		So you will be able to see that as well.
		And as a reminder again, because I know there's been a lot of fake news out there, this is a reorganization plan.
		It is not something where people are being fired today.
		No one's going to be walking out of the building.
		It's not that kind of a dynamic.
		It is a roadmap.
		It's a plan.
		It is something that there's been a congressional notice that has been sent.
		And so the steps and the procedures that happen through the government are also taking place at this point as well.
		And at this stage, I will open it up for questions on this issue.
		Yes?
unidentified		Sure.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Sean?
unidentified		Thanks.
		If you don't mind, just obviously there's also questions.
		Just make sure we can do that.
		Of course.
		The Russians said that, are saying that the Special Envoy Witkoff is coming back.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		All right, so we're doing, that's a different issue.
		Let's stick with this.
		It's interesting if none of you have any questions about this.
unidentified		No, no, we certainly have questions.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so I mean, I mean, questions about this.
		And then, of course, I know, Lord knows, there's many other things that are Happening as well.
		All right, yes, go ahead.
unidentified		Just on the hiring freeze and the way that this affects the folding in of USAID to the State Department, how, you know, given the fact that these people are not considered State Department employees, what opportunities, if any, are going to be given to them to be able to reapply or for their position?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Sure, first of all, the USAID fold-in, that in a way is kind of the genesis of this, right?
		We knew that was going to happen.
		USAID was going to become a part of the State Department.
		And in this framework, what you'll see, and it makes, I think, perfect sense, and people seeing this will see that it makes sense, is that instead of this monolithic entity that was its own object in Washington, D.C., making decisions about aid and where the money would go, the usual experience, and I've experienced this with the Secretary's travels and his conversations with the leaders and also our own embassy and consulate staffs,
		is that you would have donations or funding for a project that the country itself was not interested in or did not want and had other needs, that the embassy staff or the ambassador was never consulted, that the opinions of the people who are working in the country were not consulted.
		So they would see money going into a nation, as an example, put in to fund something that was even in some cases detrimental to the nation that we were working with or opposed by an ambassador, and yet there was no input and no action.
		In this particular kind of reorg, it's about consolidating things, right?
		Weaving certain offices into other bureaus, making the situation smaller, reorganizing it, literally.
		And in that case, you will see the bureaus, which used to have a lot of power, but had really kind of lost that in a certain way through the giant bureaucracy that became evident through the 70s and 80s and 90s.
		And that you would have a dynamic now where the intention is, and described in this plan, to have each regional bureau have the element of the USAID that is relevant to that bureau so that they would be working together and it would be a coalition,
		if you will, of ideas and minds and efforts to then also bring in and have the embassies, the ambassadors, and the governments we're working with having a say in making sure that the money that's donated is relevant to that nation, is relevant to the region.
		And that's what will be, you know, that's where U.S. aid essentially is going, is into positions where, as I've mentioned to you, as we were doing our review of USAID, is don't mistake a change for being something for indicating something is gone or missing.
		That it was never about us abandoning our commitment to funding any kind of life-saving efforts or our work with other nations and assisting them.
		But it was going to look different.
		And now it will.
		But it will not just look different, but it's actually going to be within a functional framework to make sure that any aid that goes out is aid that we work with the nation on, that we work with the embassies on, and people on the ground with an interest who are stakeholders will have a say in that.
		I think that that's certainly a much more functional way to move foreign aid through.
unidentified		But on the employees themselves are already sort of in limbo in terms of how their jobs were going to change when the department was going to be taking over USAID.
		Are those employees going to have the opportunities to apply for other positions?
		How many will be able to do that?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, some will.
		Some will.
		So again, this is a proposal.
		This obviously could change.
		But as you have offices that are cut or even some bureaus that were set up for a specific situation that end up being cut entirely, that you will have people who then, Foreign Service officers, career workers, et cetera, being able to apply for something else.
		So these are a diet, it's a dynamic where you've got a certain number of open seats that exist, and then people who of course will then be out of the seat where they were if in fact their office is cut or even folded in to another bureau.
		So these are, again, this is again a roadmap and it's a dynamic where as we've said in the past, certain dynamics where people, and this is new for me as somebody who's never worked for government, very much in a way like the military, where you can be working for the State Department, working in a specific, let's say, embassy overseas, and then that job ends and then you come home and you get slotted into a new job.
		That I think for the American people, maybe for large corporations, that makes sense.
		But that's how it works here.
		When, of course, that's possible.
		So that is possible, and we will clearly watch that as it plays out.
		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
		You said things will look different, and thank you for that response.
		But I think a lot of people around the world will be wondering what, especially perhaps in the Middle East, Africa, what it will actually mean for them on the ground.
		How will these changes take effect?
		Will we see offices over there that are being closed, consulates and so on?
		Can you talk a little bit about what people around the world can actually expect?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, I can't speak to it.
		It's a very separate issue, right?
		This is an organizational roadmap for this department here, right, in Washington, D.C.
		The arguments about what will occur in other countries, you're talking about embassies and consulates, that's not addressed here.
		It's not a factor that this reorg doesn't affect them except, as I've mentioned, is more involvement, right?
		More direct, direct, person-to-person framework as opposed to bureaucracy-to-bureaucracy.
		No more calling up USAID and going through 17 messages and trying to get an answer back about what's happening with a certain grant or what's happening with a certain plan.
		That this is really in a way that I think I've heard many people here note, including the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, of returning the State Department to its traditional base, to the nature of human diplomacy, of getting things done, and my goodness, especially in the 21st century, that moves so rapidly, faster than any other time in history.
		And this is what the State Department used to be able to do.
		It has grown, as the Secretary's statements indicated, quite bloated, unable to move, stuck in really just a bloated inability bureaucratically to make decisions or to get things done.
		And if decisions are made, the levels that have to be gone through extend the amount of time to where you can get a decision made.
		So I would say for embassies and consulates and the world itself, as they're already seeing, when it comes to the way that President Trump operates, the way that Secretary Rubio operates, it's about faster results with, I think, a more nimble effort.
		All right.
		Yes, you Myra.
unidentified		Thank you, Tanya.
		So in the reorg, we see that the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, as known as J inside the State Department, seems to have been eliminated.
		And some of the bureaus under that is being put under brought under different undersecretaries.
		But for example, Office of Global Criminal Justice, which works on monitoring atrocities overseas, which cooperates with different governments on war crimes, accountability, seems to be completely eliminated.
		So I'm wondering, this Under Secretariat was A place where U.S. basically did democracy and rights promotion globally.
		Does the new State Department under President Trump no longer seize that as a mission?
		Is that no longer a priority?
		Sure.
		Yeah.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it's a legitimate question.
		Again, we've grown used to seeing something, and then that would indicate that's where that lives.
		And if that's gone, the effort is gone.
		You know, many times during the USAID argument, I've made that argument.
		Just because the USAID building was going to be something else doesn't mean, or that certain aid was cut that was not along with our, aligned with our vision or President Trump's vision, doesn't mean that our commitment to foreign aid ended.
		So you're right.
		There are going to be certain offices and certain bureaus that are going to be gone or folded into other bureaus.
		I would say this is one of the most important aspects of this for everyone in the building and everyone watching at home.
		Because you might have had a specific bureau that dealt with a discrete issue doesn't mean because it's now folded into another larger bureau, doesn't mean that it's gone or we don't care.
		It means that, in fact, certain issues deserve to be considered part, not like some specialized, separate, segregated interest.
		Why shouldn't that interest be in every bureau, right?
		If you've got bureaus that, and for people watching at home, as I mentioned, I think in my very first briefing, that the State Department isn't just a bunch of people at a desk looking at the internet and people figuring out what it is they want to say to a world leader.
		There's bureaus filled with people who care about the country, the State Department, and are experts, researchers, individuals who are committed to a certain region, who understand it, who have also, though, the relationships with people in the countries in that region.
		And then they inform us, they do the research, they inform me for this briefing.
		I go onto the screen and it's every bureau in this building that has what we call lines, which is the information about what's happening on an issue.
		They tell me what those things are, why it matters, etc.
		So I come here, and a great deal of what I say to you, if not most, is from the body of knowledge from the people who work in this building, who are the Foreign Service officers, the career people, the career people, the civil service officers and workers who are here.
		So that's how this, it is the government as a whole is people.
		It is a collection of people who've gathered to further the founder's vision and who with each election gather to further the vision of the person who leads this government.
		So when we think about the nature of USAID or those other bureaus you mentioned, if a bureau is gone, that is certainly all these issues are important.
		It means that we're looking at certainly blending in with the regional bureaus, taking certain issues away from being specialty issues, and making sure that they're in the frameworks of the bureaus so that they can be weaved in and dealt with as a whole within all the work.
		Yes.
		Of course.
		Please.
		No.
		Next, once we get to that.
unidentified		I'm going to follow up on this too.
unidentified		Okay, then.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Hold it, but I'll make sure I give it to you guys.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		We're good.
unidentified		You said earlier that, you know, you talked about some of the programs, and you described them as, you know, the aims of the programs were not in line with the aims of the country.
		Now there are countries like US has made democracy promotion a priority, but that priority actually did not go down well with some of the countries in the world.
		So if a country, for example, a lot of people would give the example of Hungary, I mean, U.S. has funded some independent media organizations in Hungary.
		If those are in contradiction with Hungary's goals, U.S. is no longer going to develop.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no, it's not without, of course, speculating on what we would do in a particular country.
		The point is, is that American tax dollars that are sent as aid or to supplement something in another country deserves to be used to reflect the values and the interests of the United States, which of course is democracy and freedom around the world.
		I think it's safe to say that with all of our actions, certainly the Trump administration, we have made it clear that that is our priority.
		But also, making sure that the ambassadors who are also appointed, who are representing this nation in countries and others who work at the consulates, in concert with the nation that we are working with diplomatically, that we have a coalition, if you will, on knowing how that money is being spent and making sure that the stakeholders actually have a say.
		I think that's fair.
		Some people would argue that sending money into a country, spending on something that nobody else discussed, like as USAID would do, is unfair and that the people in the country that we're working with should have a say.
		But bottom line is, this now moves into something that is more accountable, more specific, easier to describe, easier to ask questions about, and easier effectively to, for everyone involved here at the State Department and at the embassies and consulates involved, more accessible and more transparent.
		All right.
		Yes?
unidentified		I just wanted to follow up on Humara on global criminal justice, because there seems to be a bit of a mixed message.
		Because on the one hand, this is clearly being eliminated from the organisational chart.
		But when we're pressing you on it, you're saying...
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, it may be moved.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I mean, if you don't see it on the chart, it may be moved.
unidentified		And then the Secretary has retweeted an article which says very specifically that this is an aggressive shake-up.
		It will close agency offices, including those launched to further human rights, advance democracy overseas, counter-extremism, and prevent war crimes.
		So it's just a simple question, really.
		Is the investigation and prevention of war crimes overseas still an important piece of work and a priority of the State Department?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is always important, obviously.
		And again, and I understand the tendency.
		I understand the tendency.
		War crimes, again, for me, being here now, we're approaching about 100 days.
		My deciding to do this is based on this nation's history, and it clearly is committed to the nature of the values of the American people and of this country.
		And just because, and this is why I think it's difficult to do, you've seen a bureau dedicated just to that, just because it has been folded into a different bureau or is an element underneath a different kind of office, and that Particular bureau that was maybe specialized, which could be implemented in a better, more nimble, faster way, especially when we're talking about war crimes and things immediately that are moving on the ground.
		This is the kind of adjustment and reorganization that makes it better.
		And this will always be the argument.
		This will be seen.
		But it is, of course, those values that you know are American values remain.
		And while the approach or the bureaus or an office might be called something differently or even eliminated as an office, but is moved through the Bureau as a whole, you'll see that the American approach to the world not only remains the same, but will be more obvious, more clear, more dynamic, and more active.
unidentified		Where will that role move to?
unidentified		Because it's very hard to see in the chart, for example, war crimes or global criminal justice where that will now exist.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, but again, this is a roadmap.
		It is a plan.
		This is something that in this process, and there is a process in this government, where there may be certain things that change.
		And there'll be a point where we're talking about implementation.
		So those details, this gives you, I think, a very good idea, transparently for everyone who's watching this, that this is a change.
		The issue is, certainly, sometimes we all know that change is difficult.
		But in this particular case, it had to happen because of the bulk, because of the unsustainability of the size of the government.
		And that's why we're doing it.
		All right.
		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Thank you, Tammy.
		Two questions.
		I know this came out on different settings.
		I just wanted to make sure I'm not sure.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		It's the same issue.
unidentified		Yes, to put you on the record that this will not impact whatsoever when it comes to the department's report on different issues like human rights, which appears to be a problem.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, I can't, I'm not going to speculate on whatsoever impact on how a report is issued, when it's issued, the content of the report, the nature of how our discussing human rights is done.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I will not, all of that would require speculation here beyond, I think, the reorganization report.
unidentified		And my second question, I know that as a spokesperson's role will be promoted, congratulations on that.
unidentified		But I want to understand with the GEC, closure of GEC recently, engagement center.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that's a very good question.
unidentified		And also, you know, eliminating some of the fundings, like grants to Moldova to fight against Russian disinformation.
unidentified		Is the issue of Russian disinformation or Chinese disinformation, is this something that you are concerned about or are you out of business of combating?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's obvious that everyone's concerned about interference in elections.
		None of us want that.
		But of course, the specifics of how a reorganizational roadmap is not going to, I'm not going to be able to answer the question about how that would be affected, of course.
		And your other question was.
unidentified		Chinese and Russian disinformation.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		No, there was a different one.
unidentified		And your office will be promoted.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's moving.
		And this is, I think, again, a bit in the weeds for people at home.
		I mean, there's an organizational chart.
		My office is now answerable to the Secretary, which, of course, all of you probably already presume that that's true.
		But now technically, it sits within that umbrella.
		So nothing has really changed in that regard, except it's a little bit more specific and obvious when it comes to the nature of my work.
unidentified		Can we just come back to the Ukraine?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, forgive me.
		I'm going to move on.
		I was also going to answer your first question, which the GEC.
		Thank you.
		He remembered.
		In fact, that's a good question because things beyond this roadmap will also happen.
		That bureau has been eliminated.
		Things will change in the State Department separate from this roadmap.
		That bureau, which had been ordered to be removed last fall, what they did is they changed its name and moved people around.
		And so that, of course, by eliminating that bureau at $50 million a year, perfect example, that worked to censor the American public.
		That is not certainly the vision of the Trump administration or the American people who put him in office.
		So yes, that Bureau is gone.
		It is really gone this time.
		And the American people are better off for it.
		Can I just add one more question?
		Yes, of course you can.
unidentified		There's an internal State Department memo that was put out about this that said that the Undersecretaries are going to be submitting a path to reduce domestic staff by 15%.
unidentified		Can you just help us understand how the leadership in charge of this reorg came up with the 15% number and if there's any wiggle room there?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, you said this is an internal document.
		I'm not going to speak on something that you may or may not, I'm not going to presume you didn't see something, so forgive me.
		But I'm not going to speak on the specifics of something like that.
		But the undersecretaries do have a role here.
		This is, again, not from on high things being swept away with one of those large yard rooms.
		This is a very specific dynamic brought to the undersecretaries who have daily operational experience.
		I see you.
		Keep your hand down, please.
		I'm sorry, it's a little distracting.
		These are undersecretaries who are working daily with the people in this building who work in this building, who know what's being produced, who know what has to happen, and they are best suited to make a determination when it comes to this roadmap about how to apply the nature of what we want to accomplish.
		So the undersecretaries are directly involved, and they will, I think they'll have about 30 days to make their own plan in this framework.
		And then, of course, we'll see how that manifests in the meantime.
unidentified		And then just one quick question.
unidentified		Is Doge involved at all on this plan, or was this just a State Department proposal?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		No, this, I think, is a very good example of the importance.
		You know, we know the American people love the result of Doge.
		I think there were some questions, perhaps, about how it was applied.
		And what we do know is that the Doge approach, the goal of that entity and of that committee, is something the President appreciated and still does, as do the American people very much.
		But when I believe the President said a few weeks ago that ultimately this was going to be an approach that the secretaries were going to begin to apply.
		And also that does make sense, because whether it's the secretaries or the undersecretaries or the people running the offices, it is the daily work of individuals committed to the country, making a difference for the world.
		And the people on the ground working together know best about how this works, what could change, and how it should change.
		So this is, I think, a very good example of the continuation of that mission and the value of that mission to cut government down to size, get people used to the idea that it can happen without it being a bad thing, and then watching the benefits that flow.
		So secretaries now in charge of this, remember, this is from an executive order.
		This is a whole of government, every department looking at how they can make their department more efficient, less burdensome, less bureaucratic.
		This is the State Department's version of that.
		I would say that Doge was not in charge of this, but this is the result of what we've learned and the fact that we appreciate the results and we want more of those results.
		And it is now in the hands of the secretaries as well.
		All right.
		All right.
		Sean?
		All right.
		Now, are we done here?
		So we should switch to some other important topics.
		As a matter of fact, one of my rules is, of course, our friend Caroline Levitt.
		We'll be starting in about 10 to 15 minutes.
		I started earlier here because of the nature of the issues, but there are some other issues on our plate.
		Shall we start with some other ones at this point?
unidentified		Sure.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Sean, go ahead.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		You were first.
unidentified		Sure.
		Not that I'm not a son of your organization.
		Could I ask you?
		Russia said today that, or Russian state media said that Special Envoy Witkoff will be on his way to Moscow.
		Is that something you can confirm?
		And if so, could you explain the natures of his discussions this time?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I can't confirm that, no.
unidentified		Cannot.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I cannot.
		Is it incorrect or is it?
		I can't speak to that.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Yes.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that is, yeah, that's not something I can speak to.
unidentified		Okay.
		Could I ask you about the Secretary's schedule?
		Sure.
		Just if I'm about mistake, you're on Fox earlier this morning.
		And you mentioned the potential of travel.
		Sure.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Could you just explain his and there's normally when we have travel scheduled, you guys get an announcement, and there was no announcement.
		And I was asked, and I had known that this was possible and had mentioned it, presuming it would happen.
		As we know, Secretary Rubio is a busy man.
		He is one of the most active, if not the most active, Secretary of State I think we've had.
		And that, of course, affects every day for him.
		And so when there's certain plans, you know, they're conditional.
		And in this particular instance, while the meetings in London are still occurring, he will not be attending.
		But that is not a statement regarding the meetings.
		It's a statement about logistical issues in his schedule.
unidentified		Can you confirm who will participate from the U.S.?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, I do know, yes, that General Kellogg is there.
		And so he will be having those conversations.
		So we look forward to hearing back from him about whether or not we've had some success in London.
unidentified		Just briefly for me.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry?
		All right.
		You know what?
		That is another issue, and I will get back to you in a moment.
		But we've had several other people who've been waiting to deal with that.
		But let me, yeah, I think that that's, I think that's all I can say to you about London.
unidentified		Just briefly, the Secretary on Friday said that essentially that we're going to see within days whether it's his exact words, whether it's possible to go forward with negotiating an end to the war.
		Is that something that General Kellogg is going to be looking at now?
		Is this really the time?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, what we all look to is President Trump's approach.
		President Trump has expressed optimism about what's possible.
		And of course, he has great envoys and a great Secretary of State who's been moving through to determine if that is in fact the case.
		President Trump wants this to be solved diplomatically.
		Obviously, he does not and does not believe, like when it comes to certainly Ukraine and Russia, they've said multiple times, both of the Secretary and the President have said that this cannot be won militarily.
		And so they want diplomacy to work.
		The Secretary said a few weeks ago at NATO that it was a few weeks where we would determine as we look to Russia based on their actions, not their words.
		And of course, now a few weeks have gone by and we are in London.
		And I think it's about what will be reported, which we will know soon.
		But then that is also the good news about being the Secretary of State is that he is the one who sees everything, can make the assessment of everything that's on the ground.
		And of course, in partnership with the President, who is the visionary and the decider, that will make a determination about whether or not peace is possible.
		Yes, ma'am.
unidentified		Thank you so much, Melan.
		The President of Colombia, Gustavo Pereto, is claiming that he no longer has a visa to travel to the United States.
		Can you confirm that report and explain the justification if he's right or not?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, I can't do that.
		Of course, we don't speak about direct individual visa issues.
		Visa records are confidential for everyone, but we are aware of the reports.
		We're aware of what he said.
		What I can say is that our two countries have had opportunities to create a brighter future for our citizens through efforts aimed at targeting violent drug cartels that are now poisoning our citizens and destabilizing our region, creating economic opportunities that advance prosperity and ending the regional crisis of illegal immigration.
		So that's what I know about our two countries.
		His comments are not something that I'll remark on.
		All right, yes, sir.
unidentified		Thank you.
		I have a question about the Iranian talks.
		I'm sorry about the Iranian talks.
		Do you have any updates about the third round with the Iranian and how do you see the Iranian engagement with Russia and China when they are updating them and talking and meeting with them about the negotiations that they have with you?
		And will there be the next round direct talks with them or it's indirect staff?
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, again, these are diplomatic missions.
		I know I speak often.
		I have to say no to you when it comes to the questions you ask because you're looking for some details, I understand, about the nature of what may or may not happen in an issue that the world cares about.
		But it involves, of course, negotiations, diplomatic considerations, diplomatic conversations here between American leaders.
		I'm not going to remark on that.
		As far as what might be next, I have nothing new to report to you at this point.
		All right.
unidentified		Yes?
		Thanks, Amy.
		The Diplomatic Security Service says it's been assisting the Virginia Homeland Security Task Force in arresting undocumented migrants and some people who are connected to transnational gangs.
		I wonder if you could say more about the decision to have DSS jump in there and whether you expect this collaboration to be ongoing and if there's any concern that this will detract from the original mission.
tammy bruce ▲ ● ▼		Well, good question, if that's accurate.
		And so I need to check.
		We'll take that back and I'll get back to you on that.
		And your question is going to be the last one because we are just a few minutes to one o'clock.
		Thank you, everyone.
		We will have, I do want to let you know also for Thursday, my principal deputy, Tommy Piggett, will be briefing you for the first time.
		So that will be fun on Thursday.
		It's very, it's a very, very exciting time.
		Thank you, everyone.
		Appreciate it.
		Thank you.
		Have a great rest of your day.
		Thank you.
unidentified		This week, watch a primetime encore presentation of our 10-part series, First 100 Days.
		We explore the early months of U.S. presidencies, from George Washington in 1789 to Donald Trump in 2017.
		We'll learn about the decisions made and how they shaped the White House, the nation, and history.
		Tonight will feature the first 100 days of Ronald Reagan's presidency.
		In 1981, the former California governor won the White House by defeating President Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election.
		He came to Washington with an agenda of cutting taxes and reducing the size and role of the federal government.
		In March of 1981, President Reagan survived an assassination attempt in Washington, D.C. Let me briefly review for the American people what we've already done.
ronald reagan ▲ ● ▼		Within moments of taking the oath of office, I placed a freeze on the hiring of civilian employees in the federal government.
		Two days later, I issued an order to cut down on government travel, reduced the number of consultants to the government, stopped the procurement of certain items, and called on my appointees to exercise restraint in their own offices.
		Yesterday, I announced the elimination of remaining federal controls on U.S. oil production and marketing.
unidentified		Today, I'm announcing two more actions to reduce the size of the federal government.
unidentified		Watch first 100 days tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2 or online at c-span.org.

▲