MS BRUCE: It seems like it was just yesterday that I was here. (Laughter.) That’s great. Oh my gosh, Nadia is gracing us with her presence. (Laughter.) Welcome back from the White House coverage you’ve been doing.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS BRUCE: But we were proud of you, if I may say.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS BRUCE: And yes, very good job.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS BRUCE: And not a lot of people would be as composed. I certainly am not when I’m there and talking to him. So yes, very impressive.
So, I do have a few comments for you as we begin the briefing here today at State. To begin, an update on the situation in Syria. The United States unequivocally condemns this violence. All parties must step back and engage in meaningful dialogue that leads to a lasting ceasefire. (Cell phone rings.) Whoever’s got the music going, that’s a lovely touch – (laughter) – but we really need it to be turned off. All right.
QUESTION: Sorry, Tammy. Can you begin again for me?
MS BRUCE: I’m going to start again at the stop. Please turn off your phones. Please turn off the sound. Do not disturb. You don’t have to have it on airport, but – although I could say that we are an airplane, but we’re not. Let’s start again, shall we? And welcome aboard to everyone watching at home. We know CSPAN covers us live as well; we appreciate that. And of course we’re a little late today, but actually, every time is the perfect time because our colleague Karoline was – had her later briefing, so here we are right now.
So, to begin, an update on the situation in Syria. The United States unequivocally condemns the violence. All parties must step back and engage in meaningful dialogue that leads to a lasting ceasefire. In a tweet this morning, Ambassador Tom Barrack, also, of course, our special envoy for Syria, said, “Thankful to all sides for their break from chaos and confusion as we attempt to navigate all parties to a more durable and peaceful solution in Syria.”
Over the last 48 hours, the United States has led diplomatic efforts to promote real de-escalation and peace. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted yesterday, “We have engaged all the parties involved in the clashes in Syria. We have agreed on specific steps that will bring this troubling and horrifying situation to an end tonight. This will require all parties to deliver on the commitments they have made, and this is what we fully expect them to do. We are actively engaging all constituencies in Syria to navigate towards calm and continued discussions on integration and a stable, more prosperous future for all Syrians. To that end, we are calling on the Syrian Government to lead in determining the path forward.
Now, today the United States also sanctioned TDA leader Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, also known as Niño Guerrero, and five other key members. The Department of State, through the Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program, managed by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, is offering a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Guerrero. TDA is a foreign terrorist organization that originated in Venezuela and has launched a campaign of terror throughout our hemisphere. We are determined to protect Americans by eliminating TDA’s vicious criminal activities.
In addition, yesterday the United States, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and the United Kingdom marked the UK’s accession to the Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement, CSIPA. This milestone framework builds on the historic Abraham Accords and is aimed at fostering broader integration in the Middle East, bolstering mutual deterrence against external threats, and expanding cooperation to advance security, stability, and prosperity in the region.
And finally for today’s topper, starting today Secretary Rubio decided to end the Ordered Departure Status for the U.S. Mission Iraq personnel, including personnel at the U.S. Embassy Baghdad and U.S. Consulate General Erbil. Personnel who are temporarily relocated outside of Iraq will begin a gradual return to U.S. Embassy Baghdad and Consulate General Erbil.
The State Department’s Travel Advisory for Iraq remains at a Level 4, which of course translates to Do Not Travel. We remain strongly committed to advancing our policy priorities in Iraq, strengthening Iraq’s sovereignty, advancing U.S. business interests, and engaging with Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people. The State Department, U.S. Embassy Baghdad, and Consulate General Erbil will continue to closely monitor and assess, as you might imagine, the security situation across Iraq and the region.
And that is the conclusion of my announcements, and I’m ready to take your questions. And we’ll start with the young lady who was in the White House first, so we’ll start with Nadia right now.
QUESTION: Thank you. I want to follow up with what you said. The President spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has just issued a statement to say he’s very sorry about targeting – or not targeting, but by attacking this church. He said it was done by mistake. But the State Department and the White House put a priority on protecting minorities, especially Christians. How can you make sure that Christians in Gaza are protected – we have three people dead, including 88-year-old woman from Ayyad family – and to make sure that these people are not actually targeted, but as the prime minister said? Because there have been many, many incidents before, Tammy, as you know. They targeted the Russian Orthodox church before.
MS BRUCE: Yes. Well, in this case, of course, it was an accident. I think that the response from Netanyahu is an appropriate start. Of course, we share condolences to the citizens, the civilians’ deaths at the Roman Catholic church. We have asked that Israel investigate the strike still, of course, and ensure that all civilians, including Christian civilians, remain safe. That’s one of our, of course, regular asks of everyone as we try to stop war and engage with ceasefires because of the horrible dynamics that exist across the world when this goes on. There’s no benefit to this – any kind of military action, no real benefit at all.
So, Israel did express a deep sorrow over the damage and over any civilian casualties, and the IDF they do note is investigating. And of course, for further information we refer you to the Government of Israel. I can tell you, as I think Karoline also noted, that President Trump also spoke to the prime minister, and I think it’s an understatement to say that he was not happy that it was – it’s – who is? This is, again, the kind of thing that reinforces his commitment to peace around the world.
I’ve spoken with the Secretary today at length on a number of issues. Obviously, everyone is appalled. I can tell you for those who haven’t seen it and for those at home, the Israeli foreign ministry has said, “Israel expresses deep sorrow over the damage to the Holy Family Church in Gaza City and over any civilian casualty. The IDF is examining the incident, the circumstances of which is still unclear, and the results of the investigation will be published transparently. Israel never targets churches or religious sites and regrets any harm to a religious site or to uninvolved civilians.”
The IDF has a statement as well: “The IDF is aware of reports regarding damage caused to the Holy Family Church in Gaza City and casualties at the scene. The circumstances of the incident are under review. The IDF makes every feasible effort to mitigate harm to civilians and civilian structures, including religious sites, and regrets any damage caused to them.”
So, this is, I think, a good indication of their realizing what the world expects, what we expect, and of course, appreciating POTUS’s contact as well, which is helpful for all of us.
Nadia, one more.
QUESTION: Can I ask one more thing about Syria?
MS BRUCE: Yes, ma’am.
QUESTION: Yesterday the Secretary told us at the Oval Office that the conflict in Sweida is between the Bedouins and the Druze. Do you rule out any involvement of foreign fighters or ISIS fighters in what we have seen, witnessed in the last three days, including atrocities against civilians?
MS BRUCE:Well, there will be some continued – obviously, there will need to be some continued investigation of the nature of what’s occurred. We saw, of course, the President and the Secretary note, both of them, that they have been involved, and certainly our Special Envoy Tom Barrack is also, of course, the ambassador to Türkiye.
And we know what we know at this point. Clearly, there has to be more investigation into the nature of how this started. But ultimately, the discussions have created a dynamic where the Syrians have withdrawn, Israel has not continued. That has ceased. And of course, there continue to be skirmishes. This is – these are – this is a rivalry between the Druze and the Bedouins that’s, I think, 400 years old. This is, though, one of those challenges that if perhaps confronted in the modern age with new possibilities of living together, that is the kind of thing we now know must be addressed.
So, we’ve had some success. You heard in my topper the Secretary’s continued optimism. And Ambassador Barrack, of course, will – is returning and will be involved. And of course, I can tell you also that we unequivocally condemn the violence that has unfolded there. All parties must step back and engage in meaningful dialogue that leads to a lasting ceasefire. Of course, we know those lines from various other locations, but we also have committed to them, and we engage with them, as we are also in this case.
Over the last 48 hours, the United States has led the diplomatic efforts to promote real de-escalation and peace. We are actively engaging all constituencies in Syria to navigate toward calm and continued discussions on integration and a stable, more prosperous future for Syrians, and that continues. That has been the mission of Envoy Barrack, and it remains the mission of President Trump and Secretary Rubio.
All right. Yes, ma’am. Humeyra.
QUESTION: Hi, Tammy. I just want to understand. My colleagues asked about this yesterday, but did you guys get to the bottom of the misunderstanding that Secretary Rubio talked about yesterday? We see it in a different wording again today in Ambassador Barrack’s tweets or posts – confusion. What was this misunderstanding? And did the U.S. Government intervene in a way to assure that this misunderstanding will not happen going forward again?
MS BRUCE: You seem a little skeptical, but I don’t know if – I know some people at home can see some of the reporters here in the first two rows.
QUESTION: I guess that’s a prerequisite in this job, yeah? (Laughter.)
MS BRUCE: Yes, yes. Perhaps it is. But for those who don’t know, the language from Ambassador Barrack’s tweet: “Thankful to all sides for their break from chaos and confusion as we attempt to navigate all parties to a more durable and peaceful solution in Syria.” And I noted to you already the language from the Secretary.
The confusion, as was conveyed to me and was, I think, generally understood, was this ancient rivalry between the Druze and the Bedouins and violence ensuing; the Syrians moving to that area to quell and stop that violence; and the Israelis, who see that occurring to the Druze community and their concerns, then entered what they assessed was something larger than what or even not what it was at all.
I am not a party to the full discussions or to the details of – obviously, of all of these groups and nations and what their choices were. But what the Secretary chose and the President chose to use the word “miscommunication” or “misunderstanding” – obviously here now from the ambassador “chaos and confusion.”
The good news is – the story is it stopped as – within the management of that larger conflict. Again, there’s still skirmishes and other issues that – as we’ve also noted. The Syrian Government is going to have to lead, but with – obviously they’ll be other involvements, but lead into this de-escalation and to the stability.
So, this is a reminder. And you weren’t here, but as I noted to one of your colleagues who asked as well yesterday, that this is a region and certainly a nation that has been unstable – which is why we talk about stability – for generations. There have been rivalries for hundreds of years. We are optimistic people – humans tend to be that – and our effort is to try to bring this together and to stop it. The answer to whether or not there’s hope is the fact that we – that there’s been a response, that the parties have acquiesced and are dealing with that response, and that we are committed to seeing this problem that emerged. And now we know what to work on to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
QUESTION: Right. My follow-up to that is related to something that you just said. The U.S. is pursuing stability in Syria, as far as I can tell, lifting of the sanctions and —
MS BRUCE: I promise you, that’s what we’re pursuing.
QUESTION: Right.
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: So, does it support Israel carrying out these military operations when it deems necessary?
MS BRUCE: I can tell you regarding Israel’s intervention and activity is the United States did not support recent Israeli strikes. We are engaging diplomatically with Israel and Syria at the highest levels, both to address the present crisis and reach a lasting agreement between the two sovereign states. President Trump has outlined his clear vision of a prosperous Middle East and stable Syria, at peace with itself and its neighbors. Peace among neighbors, including Israel and Syria, is a critical component of this vision. So, I won’t speak to future conversations or past ones. What we’re dealing with now is this particular episode, what was required, and I think we’ve been very clear about our displeasure. Certainly, the President has, and we’ve worked very quickly to have it stopped.
All right. Yes, Willy.
QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. Just back to your topper on Syria, you mentioned you condemn —
MS BRUCE: And let’s stick with Syria for a bit, while we’re in it, just so you know. And then we’ll continue on, of course.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: You mentioned that you condemn the violence. Are you specifically talking about the Druze-Bedouin violence –
MS BRUCE: All the violence. All violence.
QUESTION: – or also the Israeli strikes?
MS BRUCE: Clearly, this started between those two groups. And what we know is that violence erupted – well, it’s a continuing long issue between those two tribes – and then two major nations began to engage. Obviously, we then engaged and it stopped.
And that is, for me, a very, very proud moment. I’ve been – it’s a remarkable situation being here at the State Department and here at this podium. And taking this job is to be an observer of actions that can be taken that stop what could end up being major global, horrible issues.
And we continue to work on some; we have been successful on others. But it was a very heartening and wonderful to see the work in that regard. So I think that it’s the violence in general that appalls the President, that disturbs the Secretary. And it is what we all want – even though we’ve grown used to it, but it is – it’s possible. And if anyone can make it happen – if any country can, it’s the United States, and it’s the President, and it’s Secretary Rubio.
All right. Yes, Shaun.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on your answer that you gave to Humeyra and said that the United States does not support recent Israeli strikes? Can we say that the United States –
MS BRUCE: Oh, boy.
QUESTION: I like —
MS BRUCE: Yes, I know. It was suddenly the voice of God. I don’t want to give you any hints there, though.
QUESTION: That’s always my aspiration.
MS BRUCE: Yes, there we go.
QUESTION: Just going back on Syria, so that – when you said that the United States opposed the Israeli strikes –
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: Two parts to that. Was there a message beforehand that Israel should not do this? And now going forward, will the U.S. continue to reject Israeli military —
MS BRUCE: Well, as you know, I won’t speculate. I’m not going to comment on what was or was not said prior to the situation that we’re dealing with currently, nor will I speculate about – every situation is different. I’m not going to speculate or guess – none of us should – at what the leaders of our country might do under any other certain circumstance.
QUESTION: Well, just to – also at the beginning you were talking about how Syria – the Syrian Government needs to lead a future path —
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: I forget the exact words. But is there a long-term solution? I mean, you mentioned that the United States helped defuse the situation, but this is essentially the Syrian forces leaving part of what is part of Syrian territory. Is – are you seeing a long-term demilitarization? Is that what the U.S. would –
MS BRUCE: Well, I know it’s about Syria taking the lead and determining the path forward. And so that was a very specific way that it was put. And I can’t – I think there’s a few people who have an idea of what’s possible in what seems to be maybe an impossible situation. But we don’t see it that way. And I think that’s where new ideas, new solutions can emerge, is when you don’t give up to what you think is impossible.
So, I’m not – I can’t comment on what the strategy would be, what individuals imagine. It is a region that is ancient, and the people are ancient, and it is the modern world, and it’s – I think we now provide a chance – our generations do – to have a different kind of path forward.
QUESTION: Just one more point on that.
MS BRUCE: All right.
QUESTION: I mean, one of the points that Israel is making is that there are jihadists involved in this, and that there – some of the violence against – has been against Druze. Is there any concern about linkages potentially between the Syrian Government and – is that something that the U.S. has seen? Is that something that the U.S. would look at?
MS BRUCE: Well, I know that from the beginning the issue was, of course, working with the new Syrian Government on dealing with the problem of ISIS. That is – that’s, I think, a unifying dynamic. We know that ISIS has been an issue. We know in that region – my goodness, look at what we’ve been facing with Iran and state sponsors of terrorism and what we’ve all experienced for quite some time. So, we know that that has to be part of – of which I won’t preview anything for you because I’m not a part of that team, but we know that that matters deeply to envoy Barrack. And everyone is clear-eyed about what this is, and yet it won’t stop them from trying. But the good news is is that – the good and the bad news – is that we have enough history to know what’s solvable, what isn’t.
I recall before President Trump’s first term that this idea of getting rid of ISIS, as it was moving around the globe, that it was going to be impossible. It would take 30 years. This is just a giant, horrible thing that we would just have to learn to adapt to, but it could never be crushed. President Trump did not believe that and chose to move forward anyway. And I think it was about 18 months – two years, at the most – and he eradicated ISIS. And so we know that there’s new – in order for something new to happen, you’ve got to have the idea first. We have that. Again, we’re not naïve, but we are optimistic. I think that is the history of the American people, and we’re going to continue on that. And we have good representatives helping us with that as well.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: You said that the U.S. didn’t support Israeli strikes, and you were asked about any conversations beforehand. But what about afterwards? I mean, Karoline Leavitt had said that the President called Prime Minister Netanyahu – or they spoke on the phone today – in which he condemned the strike in Gaza. But was that lack of support for the strikes in Syria, was that also conveyed to Prime Minister Netanyahu?
MS BRUCE: Well, I don’t know. I wasn’t on the call. We were not informed of those details. Karoline had what she chose to share with you, but – so I won’t get ahead of guessing what the conversation was.
QUESTION: And just one other question about —
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: — I mean, you’ve said in the church strike you’ve asked Israel to investigate that. Ambassador Huckabee said yesterday that the U.S. has asked Israel to investigate the death of Saif Musallet, the Palestinian American who was killed.
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: And yet in the same 24 hour period, he tweeted that there was a travesty of justice by the – in terms of the investigation of Benjamin Netanyahu. He called them the insanity of out-of-control prosecutors. So I’m just trying to understand how a system that appears that you don’t have faith in over the investigation of Mr. Netanyahu is good enough to investigate the deaths of Palestinians?
MS BRUCE: Well, I would not want to characterize the ambassador’s comments, but they were his remarks. If you want him to elaborate on those, you can. What I speak to here is the mission and the statement and the actions that the State Department and the President of the United States has taken and that the government is taking, and not just two issues but our overall view and vision of what’s going to be important in the world and how we react to it.
QUESTION: But that —
MS BRUCE: And so that – I won’t – I’m not going to characterize or place the ambassador’s comments in any kind of context.
QUESTION: That was his retweet of the President.
MS BRUCE: Yeah. Well, it’s not – its’ – that’s not where I’m going to go. It’s not what we’re discussing today
All right? All right. Yes, Michele.
QUESTION: I have a different topic.
MS BRUCE: Well, do we have any more Syria?
QUESTION: Syria.
MS BRUCE: All right. We’ll come back. So Michele, you’ll be the start of that. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you so much, Tammy. On the path forward and also the long-term solution which Shaun asked you, do you believe that the only path forward in Syria is that all constituency or the minority group is to integrate with a centralized government or have these escalation – the recent escalation changed your view? And do you think that federalism or some sorts of autonomy is a viable solution for the current situation in Syria?
MS BRUCE: Well, part of starting something like this so new is it’s – I don’t think it’s really ever happened before – is looking at the nature of what works and what doesn’t. Clearly, the people of Syria view themselves as Syrians. That is part of I know what was discussed earlier, of the nature of how you’re going to have a government like that and for that nation be able to represent and include everyone. The issue was including them.
Of course, every government is going to be – and should – I should say should be the decision – how it’s formed, the nature of what it represents should be the decision of the people of that country. But you’ve got to have a chance to start with the very basics, which is stability, infrastructure, some modicum of peace that you can rely on. And we expect – again, there’s been instability. So, the stability part you work on and you assess it as it continues, and then you see what needs to be addressed. And that’s what we’re helping with and – so it clearly is going to be up to the Syrian people, but the way that it would work is that it – because we’ve seen the history of when everyone is not included of what can happen. But that is – again, this is where the negotiators, those who are wise enough to be envoys who delve into this, which is the hardest work in the world – we’ll leave that to people like Ambassador Barrack and President Trump and Secretary Rubio.
QUESTION: Yeah. Help, if I’m understanding you correctly. Does that meaning that the U.S. is not opposing federalism or autonomy for the Syrian future?
MS BRUCE: I’m not going to comment further than just the theory of trying to get some stability here and the inclusion of the people who are in Syria, without going into at all what the details might be or what choices might be made. That’s not my place, so I won’t comment on that.
Said, are you with Syria yet or –
QUESTION: I’m not Syria.
MS BRUCE: No? All right. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yes. Thank you, Madam Bruce. Ahmad Shahidov. My question is about the very most discussed topic in South Caucasus. There is an ongoing discussion in South Caucasus that – about the opening of Zangezur Corridor between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and many believe –
MS BRUCE: All right, so we’re – we’ll stick with Syria for the moment, and I’ll come back to you. I know that’s a large issue, but we will do that. Oh yes, there we go in the – right there in the middle.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Tammy. It’s still about Syria. So how the *secretaries have your* convinced that the Syrian Government is the right one at the moment for Syria, looking at what’s happening with the Israeli and the Druze?
MS BRUCE: Well, again, I would just caution in any dynamic that is this fluid and changing, we’re – it’s new, it’s the kind of new idea and commitment brought by the United States and President Trump – I would caution to not see something that occurs, that has been by our government characterized as a mistake or a mischaracterization or a misunderstanding, in the midst of something that is also part of a 400-year-old tribal conflict. But the story is it was stopped. It – we were able to stop it. We know that it’s not going to be utopia the moment we all agree, “Let’s do this,” and then it happens. It can – it’s the idea, and then it’s the implementation of that idea. And that is the commitment of Ambassador Barrack, and of course of our leadership.
So, I would say that the issue is whether or not there would’ve been a response to this, whether or not there are relationships and partnerships that would listen to each other. And it occurred. Obviously, there’s more work to do. But it’s worth doing. And I think that’s our approach.
QUESTION: Yeah, follow-up only. And if I may, Tammy – thank you. And how concerned is the Secretary that these clashes, the strike that Israeli had in Damascus, may jeopardize the peace, the potential peace deal with – between Israel and Gaza?
MS BRUCE: Well, this is a whole region that has – it’s ancient, the beginning of time, with clashes throughout, and with miraculous governments throughout, just like the rest of human history. I – we’re looking at this clearly. There’s Ambassador Barrack; we have a very specific conversation going on about Gaza and Israel’s situation; certainly, we have Russia/Ukraine and other aspects where there’s new peace deals, new ceasefires that we also discuss.
But don’t – let’s not conflate all of them. They’re different situations with different triggers, different dynamics. And that’s why we look at each one differently and we’re working on each one with a different goal that is particular to that situation.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS BRUCE: All right now. So we will go – let’s go to Michele. We’ll go to —
QUESTION: I’d like to go to the rescission package –
MS BRUCE: All right.
QUESTION: — because it includes a lot of money for the United Nations. I’m wondering if it’s going to affect UNHCR’s efforts to resettle Syrians back into Syria, which they call this a historic moment to do that. And I also wonder, there’s big cuts in peacekeeping, and it includes some language that is critical of the peacekeeping mission in Congo. Yet the peace deal that you guys negotiated relies on the UN peacekeeping operation in eastern Congo to help implement it. So, I wonder if you’ve changed your mind.
MS BRUCE:Well, of course, that’s a dynamic regarding the White House and the bill regarding the budget, et cetera, the rescission bill, for sure. At the same time – and I knew, a little birdie told me, that a lot of journalists were meeting and had a briefing on the issue of the UNHCR –
QUESTION: Yes.
MS BRUCE: — right? And I don’t have that answer for you yet. I want one for you; I’m not going – we’re not – it’s literally I need to find the answer to the details of that. We’re going to take that back and get that for you. And since there are others interested in that as well, we’ll make sure others receive it, if you want to contact us with that information.
Regarding comments made in a bill, the nature of certain cuts, each situation is very unique and different, as we’ve – of course, as you know, we’ve just completed essentially a several-month-long reorganization and some cuts regarding how foreign aid is applied and implemented and distributed. I would just repeat that even though there are cuts and we’re looking at reforming certain dynamics, it doesn’t mean that our efforts will stop. It doesn’t mean because something looks different that it’s going away. It might be handled differently. But I can’t speak to the specifics that you mentioned, but what I do know, that what matters to the Secretary and what we’ve expressed regarding that region and the work we’re doing there is that what we need to have done will get done, and will be funded, and we’ll move forward with it.
All right. Yes.
QUESTION: Thanks, Tammy. I’m hoping to ask about an update to the situation where the 500 tons of high-energy biscuits are set to expire, and where else in the Middle East. The statement from the department yesterday said that the U.S. would always look to try to avoid any kind of food waste, try to repurpose it. Is there any indication that repurposing might happen at this point?
MS BRUCE:Well, there is an – a lot of interesting numbers that have been moving about with this story. There are some basic responses I can give you, including the fact that if something is expired, we’ll – we will destroy it. It’s a matter of whether or not it’s safe to distribute. But I think what’s important and what part of the story is here – and a lot of people don’t know this – is that we have been feeding the world’s hungry for generations. And we’ve done it because we can. The issue is if – are we doing it as efficiently as we can, and as smartly as we can?
We, as an example, distribute roughly one million metric tons of food aid every year, which is reflective of the American people’s generosity. Of the one million tons of food distributed annually by the United States, 500 metric tons of high-energy biscuits also is a part of what your question is in the news, has been that they were destroyed, and they were expired, and yet that 500 metric tons represents less than one percent of the food aid that we distribute around the world.
I would also note the difference in its situation, where those biscuits – why those biscuits were stored. Americans don’t realize – perhaps many do – that we store emergency food all around the world for people in the event of a catastrophe in that region. So, we have food that we purchase, and it goes to, let’s say, the World Food Program or to another distributor for – assigned to specific sites for distribution. And then we have food that is assigned for – to be held in the event of an emergency. Those are emergency frameworks. And they are not distributed; they are there in the event that, obviously, something horrible happens and you need that kind of nutrition. That’s where those biscuits were. That was 500 tons – metric tons of what they say, HEB, high-energy biscuits, and that is less than one percent of the food aid that we distribute, as I’ve mentioned.
The best analogy I can use is that I think most of us have – I do – well, I’ll just refer to myself – a lot of batteries, in a battery carrier that I don’t use; that they’re there in the event of an emergency, and the electricity is down and I know what needs batteries and what doesn’t need batteries. And if you wait long enough, and there’s no emergency, they start to do weird things. They start to sometimes bubble over and get a little corroded.
QUESTION: That’s why you should use candles.
MS BRUCE: That’s right, candles – perfect in earthquake country, also. Yes. Batteries, though, we have them; they’re situated. Other survival stuff, you situate it and then you have to get rid of it if, fortunately, you don’t have to use it.
That’s this story. The story here is the nature of the commitment of the United States to food aid, which we all commit to, but also still, like everything else, doing it more efficiently, with less expense but with the same framework.
So yes, I mean, there is a dynamic there where we’re going to destroy, and have – we have before, the emergency food rations in particular that might expire, and then replenish that.
QUESTION: So also, is –
MS BRUCE: We’ll finish her questions and then I’ll come to you, Matt.
QUESTION: Is it —
MS BRUCE: Yeah, we’ll finish. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I was just going to say that Deputy Secretary Rigas did say yesterday on the Hill that this was something that he found distressing. He said it appears to be a failure. Just this dynamic here – is there any effort within the department now to look at expiration dates at those warehouses around the world that are hosting these high-energy biscuits and make sure that (inaudible) like this doesn’t happen again, in the spirit of efficiency?
MS BRUCE: Yes, I – D-MR Rigas is the deputy secretary here at the State Department. He said a number of other things indicating – and I’ll read part of his testimony to you as well in this regard. He said, “We’re still the biggest giver of aid anywhere in the world, by far.” So – “This is a media account, so I’d want to look into… forgive me if I don’t take everything… in the media 100 percent factual. But I do want to find out what happened here and get to the ground truth.”
So, the fact is, is that what I’ve described to you as the case, the numbers that are being reported are wildly incorrect without the context of what the food is there for. It is – considering the nature of the situation, I would say that this – if the implication there was that this was due to the USAID action or a pause or something, I would say that that is incorrect. But the deputy, I think, noted the fact that there is a number of things that can affect this, and I’ve described some of them to you. At the same time, we are involved in looking at all of our systems. That’s been the case from, really, day one. That’s been a commitment of the Secretary, not just of aid technically and the structure of the building, which we’ve been just through – changing that for more efficiency – but that is, I think, a hallmark of what matters to Secretary Rubio and something that we will continue to do, which inevitably would address this dynamic as well.
But I have to say, for one percent – when you are moving 1 million metric tons of food around the world every year, for one percent to be the factor that has to get destroyed is a remarkable record. And if there is a suggestion that we’re not doing it right or we’re not doing enough, it is fair to say that we will not be lectured about the issue of food aid or what we do for the rest of the world, being the world’s largest supporter of people with food and other aid. We have been, we are now, and we will be.
All right.
QUESTION: So, Tammy.
MS BRUCE: Yes. Yes, Matt.
QUESTION: Sorry.
MS BRUCE: But don’t be sorry. You’re never really sorry. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Well – (laughter) – maybe I —
MS BRUCE: It’s all right.
QUESTION: Maybe, maybe not.
MS BRUCE: Maybe, maybe not.
QUESTION: I just – (laughter) – are you making the case – making a case that this – that these biscuits were not needed, that there was – there was no need for them?
MS BRUCE: Oh, well, that’s very clever. I —
QUESTION: Well, I’m just trying to figure out. You said —
MS BRUCE: I’m presenting the context that we have stations of food around the world that are specifically aligned to being held for an emergency while we then distribute a million tons of food around the world in immediate need frameworks that are destined for a certain place.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS BRUCE: It would – and then that gets replenished. So it’s not that it wasn’t needed. It served its purpose. It was needed. It was needed to be held in the event that there was an emergency. And that was accomplished, and it will continue to be accomplished.
QUESTION: So you don’t think there was an emergency in Gaza or in —
MS BRUCE: Oh, yes. And it’s interesting – we contribute and have aided emergencies around the world through this time. We were not waiting for anything in a holding station, as – I don’t know – I won’t say it again. We are the largest giver of food aid and provider of aid around the world, certainly of food aid, a million metric tons of food. So it’s not like because those biscuits are in the emergency section that we simply went home to watch television.
QUESTION: Are you –
MS BRUCE: We are the largest provider. We are proud of that. And we will continue to be.
QUESTION: Are committing that this administration will continue to provide a million tons, a million metric tons, of emergency food aid around the world going forward?
MS BRUCE: Well, yes. We – you rarely ask me to speculate or on a hypothetical situation.
QUESTION: I’m just saying, if you do and —
MS BRUCE: We are going to continue to be the world’s largest giver of aid and of food. We are going to be doing it in a smarter, more efficient manner. But it is our nature to do so. And I’ve said it from the beginning. You guys have heard me. Yes, things are changing. They look different. But we are still in the foreign aid business, and we’re going to be better about it. I think that’s pretty clear.
Said, you’ve been very patient, sir.
QUESTION: Thank you. Actually related to Matthew’s topic —
MS BRUCE: Sure.
QUESTION: — in a way. Yesterday, Tom Fletcher, the emergency – UN emergency relief coordinator, and Catherine Russell, the executive director of UNICEF, they basically told the UN Security Council – they painted a horrific picture of how children are suffering in Gaza. They are saying that the war is going on, but the children are bearing the brunt of it. There’s about 70,000 kids have been killed since the beginning of the war. They spoke of no water or no clean water. They spoke of waterborne diseases because it’s not clean and so on. No fuel. The hospitals are not working.
MS BRUCE: I know. Said, we know. War is horrible.
QUESTION: They’ve been –
MS BRUCE: We know. We know.
QUESTION: And she said, like, on a daily basis, 28 kids die, get killed, since October 7 until now, on average. My question for you —
MS BRUCE: Yes. It’s horrible. He has a question, though. We’ll get to it right now, I trust.
QUESTION: Yeah. My question to you —
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: – is the United States Government happy with the level of aid that is going in, the level of water that is going in, the level of fuel that is going in?
MS BRUCE: All right. Said – Said –
QUESTION: And – or are we likely to see some changes that will then save —
MS BRUCE: Yes, I understand.
QUESTION: — the lives of kids?
MS BRUCE:Said, I – in every war, in every conflict that is going on on this day, someone is suffering, someone is being killed, a child is suffering, a child is dying. We’ve seen the images. That is one of the issues – we talked yesterday about the immediacy of media. We now see those images. I remember growing up and we were shocked that we could see some of the footage of the combat in Vietnam. That was a turning point for – I was a child. I had no idea. My mother was appalled. It – but – and things now you get on your phone in a moment. We know the suffering. I have this conversation with you, Said, every time I see you. We’re both – I understand your concern.
I’ve committed my time in this season to address that as well, as have everyone else in this building, as have Americans. We’re proud of being Americans because of what we’ve been able to accomplish for the world. What I can say is is that it is – I think you used the word happy – of course we’re not happy. Who’s happy with these developments? It is – it’s war. It is – while it is common, it’s unnatural. It’s an obscene display of what humans are capable of. And that is why we work to stop it. And the people who aren’t stopping it are Hamas.
So, when you think about why this continues in the Gaza Strip and organizations who have – condemning the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and their delivery of over 70 million meals at this point, the fact is there is one group responsible, and that’s Hamas. They are still holding dead bodies. They’re still holding live people. They are still murdering people. So when you – the onus is on us trying to move through that obscene environment, and we do, to do what we can, which will never be enough.
Said, I don’t know if it’s because you want me to repeat this or if you forget what I say. It is worth repeating sometimes that we understand this and it’s why we do what we do. It is why the President is passionate, why the Secretary’s passionate, and why I stand at this podium, and why all of you are in this room, because we don’t like much of what we see. We have successes sometimes, but of course it’s not good enough. And it won’t be because the only time children will have exactly what they need is when Hamas is gone, when the terrorists are not controlling a swath of land, and when peace is generated by a government that its people have chosen and is not based in the inhumane slaughter of people.
Yes, sir. So – yes, you, sir, and then we’ll – all right.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I have two quick questions. You are aware that —
MS BRUCE: Make them not quick. But go ahead, yes.
QUESTION: Yeah – the militia have intensified their attacks on the Kurdistan Regional Government’s oil fields and on U.S. companies operating in Iraq, action that threaten the stability of the global energy market. These attacks are no different from what the in Yemen are doing against international trade. What responsibilities do the Iraqi state and the international community have in addressing this situation?
MS BRUCE:Obviously, that is an issue that we are concerned about. I have put out a statement, which I don’t know by heart. I am going to ask – well, is – where’s my Tommy? Is my principal deputy not here? Where did he go?
All right. Well, Nicole, my – I know my statement’s in here and I’d like to read it for everyone regarding the Kurdistan situation. Nicole, could I ask you to come up? Actually, you’ll have to come up here. I know, it’s not that intimidating. It isn’t. Everyone, this is Nicole, a woman who makes a great deal possible in this building.
STAFF: Let’s see what we have.
MS BRUCE: She does this for me all the time. Yeah. All right, great. So we’ll get that.
We are concerned enough, obviously, to where I issued a statement on this, on the attack, essentially, in Kurdistan. And I do want – because I wasn’t able to answer it yesterday, and I do want to get that to you, so I’m going to come back to that.
Did you have a second question, sir?
QUESTION: Second question: On Friday, in the Kurdistan Regional Government some PKK members surrendered their weapons as a goodwill gesture in support of the peace process in the Türkiye.
MS BRUCE: Yes. Yes.
QUESTION: What is your position on this?
MS BRUCE: So we are – we’re aware of the videos of the members of the PKK, which is the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, burning their weapons in a public ceremony, as we know, so that’s very important. They wanted people to see them actually doing it. That was in northern Iraq last Friday. We consider the PKK a foreign terrorist organization, so any move to lay down arms and remove that threat is a welcome step.
And of course, we know that the SDF remains a great partner in the fight against ISIS, and now it’s time for them to integrate – is this the same? Hold on. Well, this is more – moving more back into Syria, so we’re going to wait on that, and I think you found my statement on the other issue. Thank you, ma’am. I appreciate that. This is – I didn’t used to have to do this when I was 20. Many of you have to do this.
The United States strongly condemns the drone attack – attacks that have been targeting oil fields in the Iraqi Kurdistan region since July 14th. These attacks imperil Iraq’s stability and economic future. The Government of Iraq has a duty to protect its territory and all of its citizens. These strikes target international companies that are working with Iraq to invest in Iraq’s future. The United States remains committed to our partners across Iraq who are working to build a stable federal and sovereign state.
All right. Yes, go ahead, Eric.
QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. Two questions. We saw Secretary Rubio’s very important meeting with Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi last Friday in Malaysia. Secretary Rubio said it was very constructive. We are now reporting that the president of Taiwan plans to transit the United States next month, and I wanted to ask if there’s any concern about expected or foreseeable Chinese reaction, because we’ve seen in the past – for instance in December when the president transited Hawaii and Guam, we saw China’s largest naval deployment in years along the first island chain. And is there any concern that, at a time when – coming off of this high of the Secretary’s meeting with his counterpart, that the presence of the Taiwanese president will somehow be counterproductive or disturbing to this point that’s been reached in the —
MS BRUCE:Well, I think you mentioned that they had met, and I would refer you back to his comments following that meeting. He stated that this was not a warning meeting and that the discussion was constructive and positive, and I remember his attitude and I appreciated that. And also he noted – I want to reiterate that transits by the Taiwan president are fully consistent with our longstanding policy and practice. I don’t want to necessarily attach that to the Secretary. I’m not sure that that’s what he said, but that is the case.
I would also say that transits of the United States by high-level Taiwan officials, including presidents, are, again, in line with past practice and fully consistent with our longstanding policy, and such transits are undertaken with consideration for the safety, comfort, convenience, and dignity of the passenger.
QUESTION: A follow-up on –
MS BRUCE: All right.
QUESTION: Sorry, my second question, Tammy.
MS BRUCE: All right, yes, go ahead. I’ll be back to you in one moment.
QUESTION: Sure. Moving to Ukraine, if I may. Your colleague at the White House spoke to President’s expectations following his 50 days deadline. My question is about Russia’s reaction these three days. There’s no sign of any different behavior. Instead, they did issue nuclear threat, they questioned President’s motives. Russian foreign minister today said that we are not accepting any threats. So what makes the President, the administration, believe the next 47 days will be any different?
MS BRUCE:Well, I can’t read their mind, and you know I won’t begin to try to think of what they might be – I don’t know what I’m going to be thinking tomorrow. You never know. But what I can say is that obviously they’ve expressed their displeasure with how things have been so far, which in part lead to this new structure that we’re looking at, including the 50 days.
Regarding any kind of nuclear commentary or preemptive strikes, et cetera, let’s just say that rhetoric does not improve regional security. And of course, as President Trump has said, the word “nuclear” should not be treated casually, and we have seen these kinds of reckless and unhelpful statements before. So, it’s not something I can preview for you regarding what might happen or might not happen, but the good news is, is that the world knows the nature and the attitude and the values of President Trump and the Secretary and of the American Government. And we also, of course, remain committed, as we have, to Ukraine and to ending that situation peacefully hopefully through diplomacy, as the President has been committed to.
I’ll go right back —
QUESTION: Hold on, Tammy. On that line, last week – today – this day, the Secretary met with Lavrov and he signaled, quote/unquote, “new… different approach” from Russia. The fact the President moved forward with his own deadline, does that mean that you guys have rejected what Lavrov offered?
MS BRUCE: You know I can’t speak to that. I can’t address that at all. But I would caution, again, drawing conclusions because of what someone else may have said or if a phone call happened. These are very deliberate individuals – the men and women making decisions, engaging in these things. We know what’s at stake. We know what – why they’re doing it. It’s about life and death and who is alive today, who might not be tomorrow. They’re aware of everything, and the choices they’ll make will be the right choices.
And we’ll go right back to Eric here for his last question.
QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. On the same topic of Ukraine –
MS BRUCE: Yeah.
QUESTION: – we’ve seen the President – earlier this week he had the secretary general of NATO in the Oval Office. I know that he often repeats that this is – that he views this as Biden’s war and a war that wouldn’t have happened had President Trump been president, but do you think that we’re seeing a – any kind of a pivot or a greater investment from the Secretary, Secretary Rubio, and President Trump in the outcome in Ukraine, particularly since the NATO meeting and this idea that six months in, yes, the view – his view, as stated many times, is that the war would not have happened had he been President, but now six months in, there’s an opportunity to make an impact or to own the future of what happens in Ukraine?
MS BRUCE: Well, I know that the first thing that drives the President – and that the cabinet, including the Secretary of State, follows – is the vision of the President and how to approach these issues in which they agree. I can just reiterate for people from the President who said on the 14th:
“ very, very unhappy” with Russia. “I’m disappointed in President Putin because I thought we would have a deal two months ago, but it doesn’t seem to get there… I speak to him a lot about getting this thing done. And I always hang up and say, well, that was a nice phone call. And then missiles into Kyiv or some other city… And after that happens three or four times, you say the talk doesn’t mean anything.”
So that is the President speaking quite transparently about his assessment of things, allowing the American people and the world to understand that his patience – he is a very patient man, and he’s a realist, and he’s going to be honest. And the arrangements and the conversations certainly with Secretary General Rutte and NATO in general, the plans in which to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs defensively – but I think the President is someone who will make these decisions and continues to approach it aggressively so that his vision of this conflict ending will come to pass.
And that is it.
QUESTION: Yeah, you had an Armenia –
MS BRUCE: I had – I had the Armenia – you – thank you. Thank you very – I’ve –
QUESTION: I’m interested in – I’m just interested in the —
MS BRUCE: You normally sit – Michele from NPR.
QUESTION: I’m normally in the back.
MS BRUCE: You’re normally way in the back, and I was thinking, well, this is —
QUESTION: I’m trying to get more attention to the people in the back.
MS BRUCE: Yeah, well, that’s what you’ve always said. (Laughter.) This is what – this is – you’ve always said that. All right. So let’s – this is something that, of course, we do want to address. So if we could start again, and we’ll answer your questions.
Yes, sir. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Bruce. I’m Ahmad Shahidov from Azerbaijan, and I want to ask you about the Zangezur Corridor because there is an ongoing discussion in South Caucasus about the opening of the Zangezur Corridor between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And many believe that this project can help improve transportation, trade, and trust in the region. And last week, the U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye, Thomas Barrack, mentioned that an American company could manage this corridor for 100 years. At the same time, Russia and Iran have also expressed their concern about this corridor. And some reports say that they want to keep this corridor under their own control. And my question is: What is the U.S. position on Zangezur Corridor? Because this corridor will connect Armenia and Azerbaijan by land, and it will not only contribute to the development of both countries, but also change —
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: – the geopolitical landscape in South Caucasus. Does the United States support this project?
MS BRUCE:Perhaps that’s a – yes, let’s – we’ll – I think we have a general sense here, and it’s obviously sometimes one of the problems with being in a location geopolitically that many places are interested in. We do know – and this is what I can say and it’s not exactly what you’re looking for, but – I – because this is also a question that the White House, that the President’s team – we’d like to check with them and see what they would say to this. But I can just tell you that the United States – we support, of course, efforts to promote peace and stability in the South Caucasus, as you know. And we track the events there. We are watching. We clearly – it’s something we are addressing. But I want to get something more for you than that, and we will indeed.
So thank you all very much.
QUESTION: And a last quick question?
MS BRUCE: I appreciate it. That’s it. Thank you, everyone. I’ll see you next week.