HomePress Briefings…Department Press Briefing – April 25, 2024

# 											Department Press Briefing – April 25, 2024									

Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson

WASHINGTON, D.C.

April 25, 2024

## 										Article Index									

              - ISRAEL / PALESTINIAN ISSUES
              - UKRAINE
              - ISRAEL / PALESTINIAN ISSUES
              - ISRAEL / PALESTINIAN ISSUES / IRAN 
              - ISRAEL / PALESTINIAN ISSUES 
              - INDIA 
              - PAKISTAN 
              - DEPARTMENT 
              - RUSSIA / CZECHIA / REGION 
              - RUSSIA / UKRAINE 
              - GEORGIA 
              - CHINA 
              - CHAD 

1:19 p.m. EDT

**MR PATEL:** Good afternoon, everybody.

**QUESTION:** Good afternoon.

**QUESTION:** Good afternoon.

**MR PATEL:** How is everyone doing? I don’t have any comments at the top. Olivia, would you like to start us off?

**QUESTION:** Sure. It’s lonely up here today.

**MR PATEL:** I know.

**QUESTION:** I’ll start you off with something —

**MR PATEL:** Your colleagues in the wire services must be – like, there must be a great food truck out there or something, wherever they are. (Laughter.)

**QUESTION:** I wanted to start with – so tomorrow will mark one week since Secretary Blinken said that he had made determinations regarding a review of potential Leahy Law violations by Israeli military units before October 7th. He said at the time that we would see the result in the coming days, and I’m just wondering if you have an update on the timing of such an announcement or unveiling.

**MR PATEL:** So I don’t have any updates for you on timing. What I can say – and you’ve heard me say this before – is that we take extensive steps to fully implement the Leahy Law for all countries that receive – that receive applicable U.S. assistance. That, of course, includes Israel, with whom we have a longstanding security relationship. The Leahy Law also has clear legal standards, and the department applies those to all countries.

In terms of process, you saw the Secretary address this not just in Capri, but when he was here in the briefing room on Monday, that we will have more to share, I’m sure, in the time ahead, but I don’t have anything for you beyond that.

**QUESTION:** Okay. When the National Security Advisor was asked yesterday about reports in the Israeli media that the U.S. may reverse course and not actually issue any punitive action in association with these determinations, he deferred to this building. So I wanted to present the question to you, and whether you have any response to those reports in Israeli media that the U.S. may not actually take punitive action.

**MR PATEL:** Look, we – in any country in which we have a security relationship, we will apply the tenets of the Leahy Law fully. The law is pretty clear in terms of what those standards are, and those standards are applied across the board to every country in which we have a security relationship with. That will be the case anywhere where we find there to be action or activity that is in violation of the Leahy Law. I’m not going to speak specifically about any particular country, as that would be very much before the process, but we have every intention to fully enforce and implement this law where it is applicable.

**QUESTION:** Okay. I have two questions on the region, and then one on Africa.

**MR PATEL:** Why don’t you start with – stick with the region, and then we’ll work the room and then come back to other parts of the world.

**QUESTION:** Sounds good.

**MR PATEL:** I will get to you Said, just as I have done every day that I’ve been up here. Go ahead.

**QUESTION:** On the video of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, which we understand was being reviewed by the FBI yesterday, I’m just wondering if you can say today whether that video was authenticated or any new information derived from that review.

**MR PATEL:** I imagine the FBI is still undertaking their analysis and undertaking whatever steps that they – are involved with them, in close coordination with the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell. What I will use this opportunity to do is just echo again that it is high time that every hostage be released. There has been a deal on the table that Hamas continues to move the goalposts for. And so we would stress the dire circumstance and the dire importance for this to be done, and to be done so immediately. The fact – going back to October 7th, we have been clear and clear-eyed about the fact that every hostage needs to be released.

But on this specific video, this is deeply troubling, horrific, but I don’t have any other specifics on the circumstances around the video or the individual, beyond saying that Hersh should be home, he should be with his family, and he should be released.

**QUESTION:** Okay, thank you.

**MR PATEL:** Yeah.

**QUESTION:** And the last one is on Rafah. And there’s this swirling commentary and developments, again, overseas as to whether something is imminent or not. I’m wondering whether you’ve gotten any clarity from Israeli officials about the plan, whether an actual plan for humanitarian or military operations has been presented; and if not, is there one on the books in the foreseeable future?

**MR PATEL:** I don’t have any updates on our engagements, specific engagements with the Israeli Government. You saw last week the Strategic Consultative Group had a meeting with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and others. These conversations will continue to be ongoing. I – my understanding is that subject matter and technical experts will continue to have meetings at their level. But beyond that, we continue to not hesitate about being clear-eyed about any opposition that we have as it relates to a military operation in Rafah that does not address for the very serious humanitarian concerns that we have, that you’ve heard me talk about, you’ve heard Matt talk about, Ambassador Satterfield just the other day as well.

**QUESTION:** Thank you. One more if – when you can.

**MR PATEL:** Yeah. Nadia, go ahead.

**QUESTION:** I want to ask you about a colleague of yours, Hala Rharrit, who was the most senior spokesperson in the region and a diplomat who served the State Department for 18 years in different places – Hong Kong, Yemen, South Africa. She resigned, and basically she said that she’s been calling the administration to restricting in arms to Israel. She’s resigning in protest about your policy towards Israel. And she warned of that this policy will endanger diplomats like herself and U.S. troops in the region; it’s against U.S. interests in the region.

So what’s your message to somebody like her, and many in the State Department, that the normal channel that you give them to express their opposition and their views is not going anywhere? It’s basically they’re just allowing them to speak but there is no change of policy.

**MR PATEL:** So let me say a couple of things there, Nadia. First and foremost, we’re talking about a personnel matter, so I’m not going to delve into the specifics.

**QUESTION:** But this person, she’s an official.

**MR PATEL:** We’re talking about a personnel matter, and so this is something that I’m not going to speak about specifically. I have seen the reports. On someone’s decision to remain working for the U.S. Government or not, that is ultimately —

(Video plays in background.)

**MR PATEL:** Do you want to turn that off, whoever’s got this briefing on speaker?

**QUESTION:** Apologies.

**MR PATEL:** Yeah, thank you. Sorry, I lost my train of thought.

**QUESTION:** It’s okay, you can start again.

**MR PATEL:** As it relates to this personnel matter, I’m not going to speak to the specifics. But look, firstly, we have been – there is a process, there are channels that we’ve spent a lot of time in this briefing room talking about for which our workforce can share their points of view when they disagree with a certain policy or a certain action that the U.S. Government is taking. You’ve heard us talk about the dissent channel; that option, that channel continues to be in place. The Secretary reads every single one of those dissent channel cables and dissenting viewpoints from across the administration. We continue to welcome them and we think that it helps lead to stronger, more robust policy making. And the Secretary wants to hear differing points of views. He believes it makes him a better, stronger leader of this department, and a better and stronger policy maker.

Ultimately, anybody’s decision on whether they want to continue to be – remain employed somewhere or not, that is ultimately a decision for them to make. That’s not anything for us to speak to. That’s a very personal process.

What I can say that when we’re talking about the region: We are very clear-eyed about our goals and what we want. We want to see the hostages released. We want to see a ceasefire that is coupled with the release of hostages and the influx of humanitarian aid to continue to help alleviate the ongoing crisis that is in Gaza. We also want to see Hamas defeated. We want to ensure that Gaza can no longer be a launching pad for terrorism against the Israeli people. All of these things we want to see happen, and we are working tirelessly day in, day out to achieve this goal.

And lastly, I’ll just say, Nadia, when it comes to the safety and security of our diplomats, this Secretary has no higher priority than that, and that is factored into our decision making when it comes to any kind of foreign policy that we pursue, whether it be in the Middle East or whether it be in other corners of the world.

**QUESTION:** Okay, thank you.

**MR PATEL:** Said.

**QUESTION:** Thank you. Yesterday the Israeli prime minister called for a crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters in the United States of America. Do you find this to be a gross, I mean, a galling interference in American affairs, especially from a leader of a country that had just received $26 billion of American taxpayer money? Do you find that to be annoying or in any way interfering in the affairs of the American public and criticizing their right to demonstrate?

**MR PATEL:** Well, Said, I will leave it to the prime minister’s office to offer any clarification on his comments, but I don’t believe he called for a crackdown. Let me just say, though, that —

**QUESTION:** He literally called for a – he literally called for a crackdown.

**MR PATEL:** Let’s be – let’s be real about the facts, Said —

**QUESTION:** Yeah.

**MR PATEL:** — which is that in the aftermath of October 7th, we are very much seeing a surge in antisemitism across the world.

**QUESTION:** Right. I’m not trying to —

**MR PATEL:** And its tragedy demands action.

**QUESTION:** Right.

**MR PATEL:** Beyond that, though, we of course support the right of anybody to peacefully protest, to demonstrate, to make their voices heard, to express themselves in a peaceful and nonviolent way.

**QUESTION:** Right.

**MR PATEL:** However, we also believe that harmful rhetoric – rhetoric whether it be rooted in antisemitism, Islamophobia – is incredibly problematic —

**QUESTION:** Yeah.

**MR PATEL:** — and needs to be condemned and called out against. But beyond that, as it relates to the individual policies that are being pursued in dealing with these demonstrations on individual college campuses, I would defer to the local jurisdictions to speak to that.

**QUESTION:** I understand everything that you said, but I am asking you – there’s a foreign leader who’s saying that American law enforcement, including the National Guard, ought to crack down on Americans exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. I’m asking you on this particular issue – not on October 7, not on all this that happened. I’m asking you: Do you find this to be appalling by a foreign leader in direct interference in the way Americans conduct themselves?

**MR PATEL:** A leader can call on whatever they’d like, Said, but it’s – no one is naïve to the fact that utilization of the National Guard is ultimately a decision up to individual governors.

**QUESTION:** I understand, but —

**MR PATEL:** And so beyond that, the prime minister is welcome to make whatever comments he’d like. When it comes to what is happening in this country, we’re going to remain focused on that.

And specifically on some of the spread of antisemitism that we’re seeing, this is something that this President takes incredibly seriously, and that’s why he has implemented the first-ever national strategy to combat antisemitism. Other kinds of harmful, hurtful rhetoric that we have been seeing as well in the aftermath of October 7th, rooted in Islamophobia, rooted in stigmatism around Arab Americans or Palestinian Americans – that is also equally problematic and needs to be condemned as well.

**QUESTION:** Yes. I —

**QUESTION:** A follow-up —

**QUESTION:** No, no. Hold it. Please, I am not done. I’m not done. I am not done.

**QUESTION:** I wanted a quick follow-up.

**QUESTION:** Hey, I’m not done. Please, I’m not done. I want to ask you – I understand. I understand the need to combat the despicable antisemitism and so on. I understand what the President is doing. I’m asking you: Do you reject the fact that a foreign leader is saying that the demonstrations ought to be put out – ought to be cracked down upon? That’s what I’m asking you. Do you reject that?

**MR PATEL:** Said —

**QUESTION:** I mean, you reject people – I mean, you reject the U.S. Government cracking down on peaceful demonstrators, correct? Correct? You reject that?

**MR PATEL:** Said —

**QUESTION:** I mean, this is part of what America is all about. I’m asking you, do you reject the interference of a foreign leader calling for the crackdown on full American citizens exercising their basic rights, their First Amendment right, to demonstrate? That’s what I’m asking you.

**MR PATEL:** Look, the prime minister was commenting on something happening in this country.

**QUESTION:** Yes.

**MR PATEL:** I will say over the course of this —

**QUESTION:** I’m not asking what the prime minister said. I’m asking you. You are here, representing the Government of the United States of America. And I’m asking you, you as an officer of this government, of this administration: Do you reject the interference of a foreign leader saying that you must crack down on Americans exercising their right to demonstrate? It’s a very simple question.

**MR PATEL:** I wouldn’t equate that to interfering, Said. It is someone saying something. Ultimately, anybody who has a modicum of basic understanding of how the National Guard and how local law enforcement works, that ultimately – and since we’re talking about the National Guard, that that is a decision up to individual governments. Just like you all ask me about things that are happening in countries around the world —

**QUESTION:** Right.

**MR PATEL:** — you ask the Secretary; you ask the President about events that are happening in countries around the world. We’re seeing leaders from around the world offer their comments on things that are happening in the United States. But when it comes to the actioning on those items, there are procedures in place. Ultimately these individual campuses can speak to what safety protocols that they have in place to ensure that students, faculty, and others are kept safe.

What I am saying in a broad sense is that rhetoric that is rooted in antisemitism, rhetoric that is rooted in Islamophobia, rhetoric that is rooted in targeting individuals for – simply for just who they are is unacceptable. And we have seen that in some of these demonstrations. There is no doubting that fact either, Said.

**QUESTION:** Right. Well —

**MR PATEL:** Now I’ve taken a couple of questions on this. You’ve got a bunch of colleagues —

**QUESTION:** No, I have a couple more questions. But I have one last comment. Don’t you feel offended by the fact that a foreign leader is trying to fan the flames against Palestinian Americans in this country? That’s exactly what he’s doing. You don’t feel offended by that?

**MR PATEL:** Said, that is not how I would interpret the prime minister’s comments, and I defer you to his office to offer any clarification about what he said.

**QUESTION:** Hold on. What about —

**MR PATEL:** Go ahead.

**QUESTION:** Thank you, Vedant. So on Monday, you released – a follow up on this – you released the human rights violations report, listing human rights violations in other countries, including violence against journalists, violations of like freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. But yesterday, in this country, at Texas University – we saw the footage circulated on social media showing violence against a journalist. There were also violence against protestors. Do you think that this undermines your human rights message in other parts of the world, in other countries?

**MR PATEL:** So let’s just be pretty clear about what the *Human Rights Report* is and what it isn’t. It’s a congressionally mandated, statutorily required report that this department is required to put out on an assessment of human rights conditions set out around the world. It’s an assessment of the human rights conditions in other countries. There are a variety of other entities – please don’t interrupt me – there are a variety of other entities out there within this government whose job is to look at policies and procedures as they relate domestically. That is not the remit of this department.

What I can say about the incident in Texas is that the administration is still learning more about these events. Of course, you’ve heard me say that peaceful protests are, of course, acceptable, and we fully appreciate and encourage Americans expressing their First Amendment rights and making their opinions heard in a peaceful, nonviolent way. But hate speech, violent rhetoric, including antisemitic or Islamophobic remarks targeting people for who they are is unacceptable to us.

**QUESTION:** Do you think the U.S. should set an example to other countries when it is preparing *Human Rights Reports* every year?

**MR PATEL:** We do not hold any country to a standard that we would not hold ourselves to. And that has – we feel that firmly and adamantly. And let me just say that we had this – iteration of this conversation a lot, dating back to October 7th. When it comes to the diplomacy that Secretary Blinken has been undertaking, having gone to the region now seven times, it is no surprise that there are countries and regional partners out there that might have a slightly different opinion on the policy that is being pursued as it relates to Gaza, that might have a different opinion on certain actions that the Government of Israel may or may not be taking. But in every single one of those countries, what they continue to stress to us is the indispensability of American engagement and American leadership. They want us at the table. They want us engaged. They want us part of the conversation when it comes to finding, determining a durable solution that’s going to bring greater peace and security into the region.

Willy, go ahead.

**QUESTION:** Thanks so much, Vedant.

**MR PATEL:**Yeah.

**QUESTION:** Appreciate it. Back to the protests, is this – you’re just a few blocks away from here of the consequences of what happens in this building, of the – of U.S. foreign policy are being played out on the campus of George Washington University. Is there a sense within this department that there is – some people are – and this might be perhaps too far a reach, but this is a Vietnam moment among this younger generation of Americans directly related to U.S. foreign policy. Is there any kind of influence that’s happening on these streets that’s – are their voices reaching the Secretary? Are they reaching people here inside this building?

**MR PATEL:** Absolutely. When it comes to the voices within this workforce who may have dissenting or differing points of view, the Secretary is interested in that kind of feedback; he’s interested in their points of view. And I will just say that since October 7th, this department has engaged in a number of different ways with the various components of our workforce, with various components of our employee groups, for those who may be in the Foreign Service or Civil Service, including those who might be appointees. We have prioritized not just engaging with these various subsectors of our workforce, but also unlocking and showcasing and prioritizing resources that might be available for these various – for our workforce to help cope with and deal with what we all know and find to be a very deeply troubling and challenging time in the world.

As it relates to what is happening on college campuses, of course, we see what’s happening there too. But we’re also not naïve to the fact that when it comes to any of the foreign policy that we pursue, a hundred percent of the population is not going to agree with what we’re trying to accomplish. But we are clear-eyed in the fact that what we’re trying to pursue is in the best interest for the American people, and it is in the best interest of the national security of the American people. The things that we’re talking about – the defeat of Hamas, a two-state solution, increased humanitarian aid, further regional peace and stability when it comes to the Middle East – all of these things are in the interest of the American people, and we are continuing to pursue those lines of efforts. That is why the Secretary has been going back and forth between the region, meeting with partners in other parts of the world to talk about these very challenging issues and how we are going to work collectively to find a solution. That’s what all of this is about.

Go ahead, with the glasses.

**QUESTION:** Thank you.

**QUESTION:** The Gaza civil service today held a press conference this morning, which was televised, and they said that evidence showed that many of those pulled out from the three mass graves that they found, including children, were tortured before being killed. Some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity that they accused Israeli forces of. They called for an independent forensic investigation. This administration repeatedly says that it asked Israel – the Israeli Government – to investigate itself.

As a mediator for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, how does it ever make sense that the United States asked the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust? What’s wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation? I mean, if there – if the results of such an independent investigation prove the accusations to be baseless, then that would be in Israel’s favor, wouldn’t it?

**MR PATEL:** So as it relates to the continued reporting about – we’re seeing about these mass graves, first, National Security Advisor Sullivan spoke a little bit about this yesterday, but we continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that’s why yesterday you saw the National Security Advisor call for this to be thoroughly investigated. We want to see these facts looked into. And simultaneously, we’re continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information. The IDF has spoken to this in some sense already, but we are continuing to press them for additional information.

**QUESTION:** But why not have an independent, forensic scientific – which the Palestinians are calling for?

**MR PATEL:** We think this does need to be thoroughly investigated, but in terms of the modality, we continue to want to see some additional information from the Government of Israel before we make other assessments.

**QUESTION:** But you’re asking the accused to investigate itself.

**MR PATEL:** We believe that through a thorough investigation, we can get some additional answers. We’re also hoping to continue to get more information from the Government of Israel on this.

**QUESTION:** But to his —

**MR PATEL:** Guita, go ahead.

**QUESTION:** On the humanitarian side of this subject, is there a vetted – a list of vetted NGOs that can deliver aid through the – via the Mediterranean route right now? And the reason I’m asking is because apparently the Freedom Flotilla was delayed for a few days over there, although apparently now they do have a date to deliver their aid, and it was said that the delay was due to U.S. and Israeli and also German pressure.

**MR PATEL:** So first, when it comes to humanitarian partners in the region, there are a number of those that have been operating there already and have a full sense of the scope of the situation on the ground, whether it be bodies within the UN, World Food Program, et cetera. As it relates to the Freedom Flotilla, look, we welcome any country or any entity wanting to do more to help alleviate the suffering in Gaza. We just believe that this kind of assistance that is ultimately destined for Gaza, it needs to be transmitted through the legitimate crossings and established channels. That is the best way to ensure the safety and security of not just the aid but also the safety and security of the workers who are involved in the implementation of this delivery and ensuring that the aid gets to the places that it needs to go.

Michael, go ahead.

**QUESTION:** Thanks, Vedant. First, I want to thank you and your staff for putting together a great Take Your Child to Work Day program this morning. It was really appreciated by a lot of people.

**MR PATEL:** Our pleasure.

**QUESTION:** And with your indulgence and as we discussed, I have a question for you and then we’ll have a second question from over here.

**MR PATEL:** Yeah.

**QUESTION:** My question is that yesterday, House Speaker Johnson said on a talk radio show that he had received an emailed written assurance from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan regarding an assurance that U.S. aid that had been passed by Congress in the supplemental would not be restricted from an Israeli battalion that is reportedly being considered for penalty under the Leahy Law. So my question to you is: Has there been any assurance by the White House that would restrict the terms of any Leahy Law finding that the department might reach about that particular unit?

**MR PATEL:** Sure. So, first, I’m just not going to speak to the specifics about our correspondence with members of Congress and congressional leadership. What I can say about the Leahy Law and how it works is that it is not a bearing on the broader security relationship that we may have with a particular country. What it is – when something is found to be in violation of the Leahy Law, what it is is a restriction of the provision of applicable U.S. assistance on that particular unit or component under the umbrella of that security apparatus. So whatever may or may not happen is not – does not have bearing on the longstanding security relationship we may have with that country. It would be – if we are to find a violation, it would be a restriction on a particular unit or component.

I think your junior advisor might have a question.

**QUESTION:** Thank you. Yeah, with the indulgence of my colleagues – Calvin, do you want to ask a question?

**QUESTION:** I know we’re talking about Gaza right now, but what, like, kind of weapons – do they have like – does Ukraine have enough weapons to, like, defend themself for, like, right now?

**MR PATEL:** That’s such a great question. That’s such a great question, and I’m so glad you asked that, Calvin. I think your dad missed the daily press briefing yesterday, but that’s all right – (laughter) – where we announced this, but we were really happy on the heels of —

**QUESTION:** I was watching online, Vedant. (Laughter.)

**MR PATEL:** I think we’re – we were really happy that on the heels of the national security supplemental that President Biden signed, that we were the same day able to announce $1 billion for Ukraine, additional security assistance that included arms, training, and other kinds of military assistance around – related to these drawdowns. Some examples of what were part of that package included Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, small arms and additional rounds, high-mobility artillery rocket systems, 105mm artillery rounds, and 60mm mortar rounds. All of these things, Calvin, are part of our longstanding effort that has been in place since February of 2022 to continue supporting our Ukrainian partners as they defend themselves against Russia’s incursion on their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Go ahead. Next – yeah. Yes, you.

**QUESTION:** Thanks. On Georgia – so today, the European —

**MR PATEL:** Oh, can we – I think we’ve got a couple requests to stay in the Middle East, and then we’ll come right —

**QUESTION:** I have four more questions on Israel. (Laughter.)

**MR PATEL:** All right – go ahead, Nadia.

**QUESTION:** On the Mideast, just two things I’m trying to get an answer for. One of the thing is this country prides itself on the First Amendment right, which is the freedom of expression, and in this – what we see now in this polarization and the protest movement in the universities – how can the State Department send a clear message that people have the right to protest peacefully and criticize Israel legitimately but not being labeled as antisemitic? Because this antisemitic things have been used loosely for anybody who criticize Israel, considering that most of – a large number of the demonstrators are Jewish. The Jewish voices for peace are demonstrating in universities, whether it’s in Columbia, in D.C., or elsewhere. So this is a message that have been used by lawmakers in Congress and also when – other people here, whether you hear it on TV or in American media. So how can you send a message to say that it is legitimate to criticize Israel, but it’s not, obviously, everybody condemn antisemitism or Islamophobia as it stands? This is – it’s not even open for question. This is we know – this is a message that’s been repeated over and over again. But how can you separate the two? That’s what I want to get to the bottom of.

**MR PATEL:** Well, Nadia, we believe that the two issues are incredibly separate. Let me just say, though, that what you’re asking about is not totally or necessarily in the remit of the State Department. I certainly understand your question, and in answering yours and your colleagues’ questions about the demonstrations and protests that we’re seeing, I’m certainly not implying that any kind of criticism or critique of any kind of policy that a particular government is pursuing or not pursuing is equitable to antisemitism or Islamophobia or anything like that.

But it is true also, Nadia, that as part of these demonstrations happening on various college campuses, happening in various places, we have seen rhetoric, language, commentary that is incendiary, that is offensive, that is rooted in antisemitism. And we’ve also seen things in the same place that is rooted in Islamophobia or the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans. That’s not hyperbole, that is – I needn’t point you any further than the public reporting of what we’re seeing at – as these demonstrations.

It is totally fair and on the level for anybody to use their First Amendment rights to express their point of view peacefully on a particular foreign policy that the United States might be pursuing, that any government on the face of this planet might be pursuing. But it is also a moral imperative to ensure that in the midst of those demonstrations and in part of that process, charged, offensive language does not become part of that discourse.

**QUESTION:** Sure. And finally, how can you avoid being accused of double standard if you condemn the Iranian regime for cracking down on peaceful demonstrators and you refuse to condemn another leader – in this case, a friend, an ally, Israel – who is calling on you to crack down on – the U.S. crack down on peaceful demonstrators?

**MR PATEL:** Look, Nadia, again, as it relates to these calls for use of the National Guard, whether it be from a foreign leader or from others within the U.S. Government —

**QUESTION:** Or the Speaker of the House.

**MR PATEL:** — these are ultimate decisions for individual governors to make. It’s not really something that we would have a role in from the Executive Branch. Beyond that, as it relates to the National Guard, also I’m sure my colleagues at the Defense Department can speak to some of this specifically.

I will also say that there is not any moral equivalency, Nadia, between what we see the Iranian regime do – they are one of the biggest abusers and perpetrators of violations of human rights going back decades – versus a foreign leader opining on things that may or may not be happening in a country, which is something I do from up here, the Secretary does, the President does, Matt does. All the spokespeople in this administration who speak on topics of foreign policy are asked about topics happening in other parts of the world.

**QUESTION:** Can I follow up —

**QUESTION:** A follow-up?

**MR PATEL:** Sure. Sure.

**QUESTION:** Okay. David Satterfield, Envoy David – in his last appearance warned that there is a strong possibility of famine in the north of Gaza. Yesterday Gian Carlo Cirri, the head of the WFP, he says we are six weeks away from famine. Are you aware of these reports, and what is the position of the United States in terms of having some sort of urgent plan to deal with this?

**MR PATEL:** Well, Said, I’m pretty sure I’m aware of these reports because I was standing right there when David Satterfield said them.

**QUESTION:** Right. Right.

**MR PATEL:** You saw the ambassador speak pretty clearly about the positive steps that we are seeing on the humanitarian ecosystem, things that we believe are moving in the right direction – some gates opening up, some ports opening up, some additional flows of trucks. But I cannot stress this enough – and I’m sure if the ambassador was here with me, he would not – he would say the same thing – more needs to be done. Absolutely more needs to be done to avert this pending crisis in Gaza. We need more deconfliction mechanisms in place; we need aid entering at a higher rate. We need all of these things to happen, and we’ll continue to push our partners in Israel, we’ll continue to push other partners and other humanitarian actors to do so.

I will also just use this opportunity that – to note that just this morning we announced Lisa Grande as our new special envoy for Middle East humanitarian issues. She has more than three decades of experience on working on these kinds of challenging, large-scale, complex operations. She’s done so for the United Nations. She joins us just coming from the U.S. Institute of Peace. We’re very eager for her to get started immediately. I believe today was her first day, and I know she will continue to build on the foundation that Ambassador Satterfield and his team laid.

**QUESTION:** Will she be contacting WFP on this very issue?

**MR PATEL:** I have no doubt that she will be engaging directly and immediately with the variety of humanitarian partners that we work with on this.

Go ahead.

**QUESTION:** Thank you, sir. So a few months ago we were told that the United States is waiting for the internal investigation report by Indian Government on assassination attempt of Gurpatwant Singh Pannum New York. Now when this report is out, India admits the involvement of their agents in that assassination attempt, but we don’t have – we don’t see any trial or punishments. So what is your comment on this report, and how would you make Indian Government accountable of these crimes?

**MR PATEL:** So I’m not aware of the report that you’re referencing. But look, we have – this is ultimately a Department of Justice matter, and I will defer to them and let them speak to this.

**QUESTION:** Sir, Australian journalist says she is being pushed out of India. Avani Dias said that she had been denied a visa renewal for weeks because of her reporting on Sikh separatist movement. Do you have any comment on the free speech in India?

**MR PATEL:** So look, the Government of India can speak to its own visa policy. That’s not something I’m going to opine on from here. Broadly, we have been clear with countries around the world the integral role that a free press plays in the fabric of democracy. That’s why we come up here and take questions regularly. But I will let the officials in India speak to the specific —

**QUESTION:** So my last question, if you allow me.

**MR PATEL:** Sure.

**QUESTION:** Sir, after these sanctions on suppliers to Pakistan ballistic missile program, we can see some kind of tensions in both the countries. We have seen some, like, very harsh statements from Pakistani Government officials. Is there something going on between U.S. and Pakistan right now?

**MR PATEL:** Absolutely not. You’ve heard me say this before: Pakistan continues to be one of our most important partners in the region. There continues to be a lot of cooperation that we have with the Government of Pakistan, especially in the security space, especially in the trade sector. Azi, I think it was you that asked about a week and a half ago about the finance minister who was here holding consultations with members of the State Department. This is a robust relationship and we’ll look to continue strengthening it.

Alex, go ahead.

**QUESTION:** Thank you, Vedant. A couple things for you on Russia and the region, if I may.

**MR PATEL:** Sure.

**QUESTION:** Before that on housekeeping. The department’s Global Engagement Center, its funding didn’t make it through the supplemental. What is the Secretary’s view on that? Are you guys trying to reauthorize it, or where’s the policy?

**MR PATEL:** So the – first, the Global Engagement Center, my understanding is that it is another congressionally mandated entity of the State Department. They continue to do important work, especially in the face of combatting disinformation and misinformation in other parts of the world. As it relates to additional congressional engagements about funding levels for programs within the State Department, I just don’t – I don’t have that level of technical breakdown for you.

**QUESTION:** Please take it for me if —

**MR PATEL:** Sure, yeah.

**QUESTION:** And what level of concern on potential Russian attempts to disrupt European elections? We just recently had the Czech Republic uncovering Russian operation inside Czech Republic and targeting elections across Europe. Now elections are coming up. Any concern on your end?

**MR PATEL:** This is something that we have engaged directly on with our partners in Europe on, particularly our partners in the EU, about being clear-eyed about when it comes to any kind of potential election interference from adversarial actors like the Russian Federation. I don’t have a specific assessment to offer for you, Alex, but this is something that both we and our partners in Europe have been engaged on directly.

**QUESTION:** Thank you. Picking up off on Calvin’s question on supplemental —

**MR PATEL:** Sure. Let me finish Alex, then I’ll come to you, and then we’ve probably got to wrap shortly after that. Go ahead.

**QUESTION:** Thank you very much. Yeah, on supplemental that Calvin asked about.

**MR PATEL:** Yeah.

**QUESTION:** Portion of it is about frozen assets, and you already probably have heard about Russian deputy foreign minister today threaten the United States by saying that if you follow through that law, then we’re going to shut down our embassy in Washington, D.C. If they want to leave, is it time for the U.S. to say “be my guest?”

**MR PATEL:** I appreciate you giving that opportunity, Alex, but let me just say that when it comes to sovereign assets, these are things that we’re continuing to pursue through our partners in the G7. And we are assessing what options and avenues are feasibly possible in the various legal and judicial systems that exist in the various countries that make up our coalition, and I just don’t want to get ahead of the process. We’ll leave it at that.

**QUESTION:** Israel?

**MR PATEL:** Georgia. Go ahead.

**QUESTION:** Georgia. Thank you. Today the European Parliament voted to reject opening EU accession talks with Georgia while the Russian draft law is in place, and also urged the EU and all its partners to consider sanctions. As I have information, there is a serious discussion in Congress on how to react to the actions of the Georgian Government as well. Can you confirm that, or do you have any close and real serious discussion with the Congress on this matter?

**MR PATEL:** So I’m not going to comment on any consultations on Congress. But look, we’ve spent a number of weeks now talking about this draft law, and I will echo what you’ve heard me say before: We find the contents of this legislation incredibly troubling. It is akin to the kinds of legislation that we see in the Kremlin and in other countries in the world who have a track record of cracking down on media organizations, cracking down on civil society actors, cracking down on nonprofits. We think that this kind of legislation is inconsistent with the EU’s own stated goals, which is something aspirationally Georgia itself has stated it’s interested in.

**QUESTION:** Israel.

**MR PATEL:** Go ahead.

**QUESTION:** Vedant, thanks.

**MR PATEL:** Yeah.

**QUESTION:** How has the signing of the law yesterday, which included the TikTok measure, changed the Secretary and State Department officials’ conversations in China, or has it?

**MR PATEL:** I would say it’s not. The – it’s not changed, because this has been a longstanding position of not just this President but also Secretary Blinken, the contents – or the specific legislative contours of that provision. We’ve been clear about the substance of our national security concerns, and I just want to reiterate: This is not about the American people using TikTok; it is about ownership of TikTok by the People’s Republic of China. And that is why we agreed with this call for divestment because it’s clear that we have to ensure that the data, the privacy of the American people is not owned by an adversarial actor that could potentially use it against us.

But look, behavior and actions like this from the PRC have always been part of our conversations in our ongoing relationship with them, and I have no doubt that these things will continue to come up. But this has been a longstanding position for – you – I’m pretty sure you saw the President came out almost very quickly after this provision was first introduced, basically saying that he would sign this should it pass, which he obviously did.

Yeah.

**QUESTION:** And does the U.S. think that the PRC’s position or objections to the potential of banning an app somewhat – somewhat hypocritical?

**MR PATEL:** I’m not going to opine on it or categorize it from here, but our view is that there’s some clear runway here on what TikTok is – should be able to do. It provides for 270 days for a qualified divestment with a potential extension for another 90. And as it relates to the PRC’s claims that they wouldn’t allow something like this to happen, we believe that it should and we believe that this divestment should move forward.

Goyal, go ahead.

**QUESTION:** Follow-up on this. As far as TikTok is concerned, India has banned already two years ago. Why it’s taking so long for the United States when everybody knows that this is a national security threat? And if anybody from the department have spoken with the Chinese Communist Party or Chinese leaders about this, and what’s behind – there’s a lobby or somebody is benefiting from this and that’s why they don’t care about the national security issues in the U.S.?

**MR PATEL:** So I will leave it to our partners in India to speak to their own efforts, but what I can say about the United States is that legislation is not the only sort of safeguard measure that we have when it comes to protecting things like our privacy and cyber security. I will just say when it comes to government devices and government assets, there has been a longstanding policy of the inability to use TikTok on those kinds of devices to ensure safety in the cyber security and tech space. So there’s a number of things like that in place to make sure that we’re protected.

Olivia, go ahead.

**QUESTION:** Second question, sir.

**MR PATEL:** I’m going to – I’m going to work the room, right —

**QUESTION:** Sorry.

**MR PATEL:** — and then Olivia, and then we probably have to wrap.

**QUESTION:** Thank you.

**MR PATEL:** Go ahead.

**QUESTION:** So there are reports that U.S. military personnel are expected to leave Chad in the coming days, possibly as soon as this weekend. Can you say whether there are any diplomatic efforts underway to stop that from happening? And then more broadly, is the department working at all on an urgent basis to quell what appears to be this swell of pro-Russian, anti-American sentiment coursing throughout significant counterterrorism partners like Chad?

**MR PATEL:** Yeah, let me – let me address that in two parts. So first, our military deployments anywhere around the world, they operate at the invitation and with the support and partnership of host nations. U.S. forces in Chad have supported regional and international counterterrorism operations against violent extremism in the Sahel and the Lake Chad region for years now. We are in ongoing conversations with Chadian officials about our security partnership. Our understanding is that Chad is focused on preparing for its upcoming presidential elections on May 6th, and so we anticipate these consultations and the parameters and discussions around our security cooperation will continue and grow in the ensuing time after those presidential elections.

And as it relates to your broader question, we have been clear that the U.S. has a deep commitment to expand our partnerships with – between the United States and African countries, African institutions, and the people of Africa. This was a key pillar of the African Leaders Summit that was held about a year and a half ago. One of the key things that we continue to remain focused on, especially in the West African and Sahel region, is the security partnership, a focus on counterterrorism, and again, our military deployments there are at the invitation and in the support and partnership of these host countries. And we’re going to remain focused on working with additional partners, seeking out additional partnerships, and doing what we can to focus on these issues of security as well as overcoming economic and other development challenges as well.

**QUESTION:** Is there any redoubling or intensification of efforts just given recent developments?

**MR PATEL:** I don’t have any specific engagements to read out. What I can say is that Deputy Secretary Campbell I expect to travel to the region in the coming months, specifically in the context of Niger, to continue to have these kinds of conversations and to continue to strengthen our relationships there.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)

# # #

Tags

ChadChinaCzech RepublicGeorgiaIndiaIranIsraelOffice of the SpokespersonPakistanPalestinian TerritoriesRussiaUkraine

Back to Top