2:04 p.m. EDT

MR PRICE: Good afternoon. Let me start by saying that our first responsibility has always been protecting the safety and the security of our citizens serving in Afghanistan and around the world. As we have said all along, the increased tempo of the Taliban military engagement and the resulting increase in violence and instability across Afghanistan is of grave concern. Our embassy in Kabul has been on ordered departure since April 27th, and we’ve been evaluating the security situation every day to determine how best to keep those serving at our embassy safe. This is what we do for every diplomatic post in a challenging security environment.

Accordingly, we are further reducing our civilian footprint in Kabul in light of the evolving security situation. We expect to draw down to a core diplomatic presence in Afghanistan in the coming weeks. In order to facilitate this reduction, the Department of Defense will temporarily deploy additional personnel to Hamid Karzai International Airport. Secretary Blinken, together with Secretary Austin, had an opportunity to speak with President Ghani to coordinate our planning earlier today.

Let me be very clear about this: The embassy remains open and we plan to continue our diplomatic work in Afghanistan. The United States will continue to support consular services, and that includes the processing and operations of the Special Immigrant Visa program, and will continue to engage in diplomacy with the Afghan Government and the Afghan people. Additionally, we will continue our focus on counterterrorism.

At the same time, our efforts to relocate interested and qualified Afghan SIV applicants will continue to ramp up. To date, Operation Allies Refuge has brought more – has brought to the United States more than 1,200 Afghans who worked side by side with Americans in Afghanistan. That includes interpreters and translators, along with their families. Additional flights will begin landing daily, and you’re going to see the total number grow very quickly in the coming days and the coming weeks.

We’ll begin implementing these measures soon in close coordination with allies and partners. For operational security reasons, I can’t go further – into further details on the next steps, but as we have long said, we are committed to supporting Afghanistan and its people. That commitment remains.

QUESTION: Just one logistical thing on the flights that you just mentioned, on the – that they’ll be landing daily. Was the – you gave some numbers a couple days ago – two days ago, maybe.

MR PRICE: That’s right.

QUESTION: 995 – is that still —

MR PRICE: We were at 995.

QUESTION: Is that still the number, or —

MR PRICE: We’re at 1,200 as of today.

QUESTION: Oh, I’m sorry, did I miss that at the opening? Sorry.

And then – and these new flights starting daily. Like today, tomorrow?

MR PRICE: They’ll start daily in the coming days. Our focus is on increasing the tempo of our relocation operations. As we’ve said, we have a solemn, a sincere responsibility to these brave Afghans – in many circumstances, in many cases at great personal risk to themselves have worked with the United States over the past 20 years. We’re going to honor that responsibility and increase the pace of those relocation flights.

QUESTION: Okay. And then – and I’m sorry I missed that at the top. And then on the embassy, when you say it will remain open, will it remain open in its current location?

MR PRICE: Well, let me be very clear, because this is a point I want to leave no uncertainty about: The embassy remains open. We continue our diplomatic work, our diplomatic mission in Afghanistan. We will continue to do the priority functions. That includes supporting peace, security, assistance, cooperation on counterterrorism; consular services, as we’ve been talking about, especially in the context of the Special Immigrant Visa program. We are always, as I said at the top, reviewing the environment in especially complex operating environments, and of course, that includes Kabul.

And so today’s announcement is really a continuation of one of our most important responsibilities, and that is doing all we can to ensure the safety, security, the welfare, the well-being of our people. As you know, we went on ordered departure in Kabul on April 27th with an eye to the security environment, but since then and going forward, we are going to continue to prioritize these key areas, knowing that our partnership with the Afghan Government and our partnership with the Afghan people will be enduring. And so that will continue.

QUESTION: But that doesn’t – sorry, but my question was: Is the embassy going to remain open in its current location?

MR PRICE: The embassy remains open, Matt. We are always – we are —

QUESTION: Can you move to the second part of the question? Will it remain open at its location or is it going to the airport?

MR PRICE: We are always evaluating the situation on the ground. We are planning for all contingencies. This was a contingency, in fact, that we had planned for. So I’m not going to entertain hypotheticals. I’m not going to go into what additional contingencies may arise, but it’s very important to say that our embassy remains open and our diplomatic mission will endure.

QUESTION: Does – yeah, but —

QUESTION: Ned, it’s not a hypothetical. Is the embassy staying at its current location or is it moving locations to the airport?

QUESTION: Or anywhere else.

MR PRICE: Christina – Christina.

QUESTION: Or anywhere else?

MR PRICE: The embassy remains open in its current location.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PRICE: I’m not going to entertain hypotheticals from there.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR PRICE: Okay. Okay. All right.

QUESTION: Ned, my last one and I’ll let everyone else go because I know – yeah. But my last one is: The people who are being drawn down, the staffers who are leaving, are they flying out commercially or is it that that’s what the military is going in to do?

MR PRICE: Well —

QUESTION: To take – to take them out.

MR PRICE: The military will be there to help effect an orderly and a safe reduction in our personnel. I do expect that the military will help with these relocation operations. But as we know, Hamid Karzai International Airport does remain open. Commercial flights continue to take off and land at the airport. So the military is not the only way in or out of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: The situation is such, though, that you don’t think that these people are safe getting out of the country on a commercial flight? Is that —

MR PRICE: The situation is such that this President prioritizes, above all else, the safety and security of Americans who are serving overseas. As I’ve said, we have planned for any number of contingencies with an eye towards the deteriorating security situation. We have said for some time now that we have been gravely concerned by developments. So given the situation on the ground, this is a prudent step, a prudent reduction in our civilian workforce.

Yes, Christina.

QUESTION: Can you give us some kind of – I know (inaudible) embassies – but if you can’t tell us how many people you think are leaving, can you give us, like, a percentage and some kind of an idea of how big a reduction this is of the footprint? Does this change the exit timeline at all for the overall U.S. withdrawal? Is that being expedited? And do you think you can get the number of SIVs out on these flights – even with the tempo picked up, do you think you can get enough of them out by the time you still have the facilities and the capacity to do so?

MR PRICE: So you’re right, we aren’t in a position to speak to numbers. What we are in a position to speak to are the functions that we intend to press forward with given our diplomatic presence on the ground in Kabul. And so that includes engagement with the Government of Afghanistan; it includes engagement with the people of Afghanistan, specifically our efforts to press forward with diplomacy, security, assistance, counterterrorism cooperation; consular services, including the processing of SIV applicants.

So I’m sorry I’m not in a position to detail numbers, but those functions are what we’re prioritizing and what we intend to carry forward with.

QUESTION: So what kinds of staff are leaving, then? If those are the ones – people that do that are staying, who’s leaving?

MR PRICE: So staff who are leaving, staff involved in this reduction of civilian personnel, include, for example, those who may be able to perform functions back – well, elsewhere, whether that’s back here in the United States or elsewhere. It includes staff who may not be necessary to continue with those core functions. So we are taking a very close look at our staffing footprint arrayed against this set of priorities, knowing that we are committed to an enduring relationship with the people of Afghanistan, committed to a diplomatic relationship as well. And so we’re taking a very close look and we’ll start that reduction in civilian personnel in the coming days.


QUESTION: How’s that different from what you did in April? You already said it —

MR PRICE: It’s – it is not different. As we’ve said, this is – we went on ordered departure in April. We have undertaken a reduction in staffing since then. We obviously haven’t detailed numbers, but as we have said, including in the context of SIV processing, we determined, for example, that there were people based at the embassy who could have been based back here in the Washington, D.C. area who could help adjudicate the chief of mission-level processing for SIV applicants.

Now, what is true is that we are going down to a smaller diplomatic presence given the security situation. But as you’ve said, our overall status has not changed. We have been on ordered departure since April 27th. We’ve taken prudent measures since then to reduce the size of our footprint in Afghanistan with an eye towards the security environment. That’s what we’re doing here.

Yes, Kylie.

QUESTION: Can I – so you said that today is a continuation of what has been happening, but it appears very clearly to be a preparation for a full evacuation of all U.S. diplomats from Afghanistan. So what is your response to that?

MR PRICE: My response to that is that’s not true. This is not a full evacuation. This is not —

QUESTION: Preparation, I said.

MR PRICE: We are – and I think it’s a very important distinction between planning and contingency planning. Right now, we are – the embassy remains open. We will continue to have a diplomatic presence on the ground to fulfill these important functions. Now, of course, the safety, the security, the welfare, the well-being of American citizens serving overseas is of the utmost priority to this President. So, of course, we are undertaking prudent contingency planning. That’s precisely what we did to lead us here today. We have watched as the security situation has changed. We have watched very closely. Not only have we watched, we have engaged in planning exercises to prepare us for an eventuality like the one we’re talking about today. That’s what we’ll continue to do.

QUESTION: And what message does this send to the people of Afghanistan today, who are facing these threats from the Taliban, these military offenses, that the U.S. is not only militarily withdrawing but also taking out some of their diplomatic personnel?

MR PRICE: Well, the message we are sending to the people of Afghanistan is one of enduring partnership. We have said from the beginning that the United States will be a committed partner to the people of Afghanistan, and you can measure that in any number of ways. Today, of course, we are continuing to have a diplomatic presence. Our embassy remains open; our diplomatic engagement on the ground will continue. That will allow us to fulfill the consular services, the humanitarian support services.

And on the topic of humanitarian support, you look at what the United States has invested in the people of Afghanistan – not only in recent days, but of course over the past 20 years. On June 4th, we announced more than $266 million in new humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan. That sum total brought the total U.S. humanitarian aid for Afghanistan to nearly 3.9 billion over the course of our involvement in Afghanistan. That will not change. Even given the more difficult security environment, we can continue to provide humanitarian support; we can continue to provide humanitarian assistance. And importantly, we will continue to press forward in every way we can with the diplomacy to – in an effort to bring about a just and a durable solution to this conflict.

And let me spend just a moment on that. I know we’ve talked about that in – a number of times this week, but there has continued to be movement on the ground. As you know, Ambassador Khalilzad and his team have been in Doha this week. They have taken part in a couple gatherings already. Today, they took part in a gathering of countries from the region and beyond, as well as from multilateral organizations, with a couple goals in mind: number one, to press for a reduction of violence and a ceasefire; and number two – and this is important – a commitment on the part of those countries represented and those organizations represented in Doha not to recognize any entity that takes control of Afghanistan by force, not to recognize any force that seeks to take control of Afghanistan at the barrel of a gun.

The meeting today has included representatives not just from the United States and Qatar, which is the host, but also the UN, China, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, the UK, the EU, Germany, India, Norway, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan. That in and of itself is a broad and inclusive group of countries and international organizations. And this group actually came together – and I think you will be seeing this later today in the form of a formal statement that will emanate from this gathering – they agreed, first and foremost, that the peace process needs to be accelerated. And they also agreed, importantly, that they will not recognize any government that is imposed through military force.

So this is not just the United States making this point. This is not just the United States speaking with our voice. This is the international community, as you see represented in the consensus that has emerged today, regarding this very simple point: any force that seeks to take control of Afghanistan with the barrel of a gun, through the barrel of a gun, will not be recognized, will not have legitimacy, will not accrue the international assistance that any such government would likely need to achieve any semblance of durability.

And before I go on, let me just say this is an important statement that either has or soon will emanate from Doha today. But it’s not the first of its kind. We have seen the international community come together to speak with one voice on this very point over the course of weeks and months. I’ve spoken just recently about the UN Security Council statement that emanated last week, where the members of the Security Council recalled Resolution 2513, reaffirmed that there is no military solution to the conflict, and declared they do not support the restoration of an Islamic emirate.

It’s not just a UN Security Council statement. There have been any number of settings and venues that, over the course of recent weeks and months, we have heard this message emanate loud and clear. The previous gathering of the extended troika – there was one this week – but the previous gathering of the extended troika, meaning the United States, Russia, China, Pakistan concluded: “We reiterate…there is no military solution in Afghanistan and a negotiated political settlement through an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process is the only way forward for lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan.” The U.S.-Europe communique, the – which includes the EU, France, Germany, Italy, NATO, Norway, and the UK: “We reaffirm…there is no military solution to the conflict…we stand by UN Security Council Resolution [2513], and we do not support any government in Afghanistan imposed through military force.” There is a C5+1 statement – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan – that had a similar point. The embassies represented in Kabul only recently put out a very similar statement, and it was signed by the embassies of Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the EU delegation, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, NATO, Spain, Sweden, the UK. Just today, we heard a very similar statement from German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas. The Indian Government has made a very similar point as well.

This has been the – I hesitate to call it the emerging consensus, because it is the established consensus of the international community. Nick.

QUESTION: Yeah. It’s precisely because of that that it begs the question: What difference do you think that this new joint declaration is going to make against the Taliban’s offensive? We’ve heard this again and again, as you’ve just laid out, and it has not changed the fact that they’ve now seized 10 provincial capitals.

MR PRICE: Every time the Taliban hears the international community speak with one voice, it reenforces that very simple message.

QUESTION: But the present —

MR PRICE: You’re right. The diplomacy has not achieved what we want to see achieved. We are not trying to sugarcoat this. It has been a very tough road. It has been a tough slog. There are important contextual data points, however. Number one, as we’ve said before, this diplomacy has been ongoing for less than a year. A year ago, the Islamic Republic – that is to say, the Government of Afghanistan – and the Taliban were not speaking to one another. They were not sitting in the same room. That has changed. Earlier – that has changed within the past year.

Another important data point: They are sitting in the same room right now. Abdullah Abdullah, the chairman, Mullah Baradar, senior Taliban leader, are in Doha together. Ambassador Khalilzad has met separately with both sides. Both sides have presented to the gathering, presented their ideas going forward.

Now, I want to be very clear: There is daylight between the presentations that have taken place so far. But the fact that they remain engaged in this, the fact that the international community is speaking clearly, speaking resolutely, speaking with one voice – we intend to move forward with that process, to continue at it, to continue to support these intra-Afghan talks in the hopes – and ultimately something we will do all we can to support – that this ends up in an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led political solution to what has been – again, not three weeks, not three months, not six months, but really 40 years of conflict.

The people of Afghanistan deserve an end to this conflict. They don’t want to see 40 more years of civil war. They don’t want to see four more years of civil war. We don’t want to see four more months of conflict. We’re realistic about the difficult road that we’ve already been down, and the difficult road that presumably lies ahead. But we are going to continue supporting this diplomatic effort because we know, and our international partners know, the international community writ large knows that the only way to diminish the violence, to establish the ceasefire, and to put the parties down a road to a political settlement is through diplomacy.


QUESTION: Switching now to —

QUESTION: Can you say what percent of the civilians are being – civilian population is being drawn down?

MR PRICE: I’m not in a position to speak to numbers. I’m just – I’m not. But —

QUESTION: More than half, less than half?

MR PRICE: Again, I’m just not in a position to speak to numbers. Nick.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Switching to the Western Hemisphere, I want to —

MR PRICE: Let’s do a couple more questions on Afghanistan, and then we’ll switch to the Western Hemisphere.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you the – I mean, understanding you don’t want to talk about numbers, can you give us some sense of the troop deployment, what that’s going to look like, what service branch are they from, who are these troops? And then also, what are those troops going to do? I mean, they’re going to the airport, so they’re going to be based there, and then, like, what do they do? Are they running convoys in to the embassy to grab people and bring them to the airport so that they can be evacuated? Like, what is their mission beyond – and can you give some more details of that beyond the idea that they’re just there to support the withdrawal?

MR PRICE: Yep. So Nick, you are in luck. My very able colleague at the Pentagon, John Kirby, will be briefing at 2:45.

QUESTION: Very able colleague and predecessor.

MR PRICE: And predecessor. He will be briefing at 2:45, which is another reason I want to make sure we take a few more questions before then.

Let me just say – and Kirby will go – presumably be able to go into this in a bit more detail – but these incoming forces, these incoming assets, will be based at the airport for one reason and for one reason only, and that is to help effect the reduction in our civilian footprint. They are not – they will not be relocated there for any other reason. This is about doing all we can to ensure the safety and security of our personnel as we reduce the size of our civilian footprint in Kabul.

QUESTION: Can you say how long they’re planning to be there?

MR PRICE: I would refer you to the Pentagon for that.

Missy, please.

QUESTION: Again going back to an earlier question about what message this is sending, can you just – do you expect there to be – or what would be your response to the critics who are saying this is going to further embolden the Taliban and make them feel like they have even more rein to push for a political agreement that suits their interests? And then will you be letting us know if the embassy is indeed closed? I know that it remains open right now. If you could just talk about how you’re going to communicate that in the future, that would be great.

MR PRICE: Well, on your second question, we are always going to put the safety and security of our people first. We don’t want to do anything, we don’t want to say anything that could expose them to any additional risk. At the same time, we want to operate with transparency to the extent we can on sensitive areas like this. So we will strive to do both of those things. And as we have more details to share, we will.

Look, in terms of the signal this sends, I want to be very clear about what this is and what this is not, starting with the latter. What this is not: This is not abandonment. This is not an evacuation. This is not the wholesale withdrawal. What this is is a reduction in the size of our civilian footprint. This is a drawdown of civilian Americans who will in many cases be able to perform their important functions elsewhere, whether that’s in the United States or elsewhere in the region.

So the message shouldn’t be – the implications of this shouldn’t be outsized. I think all parties – the Afghan Government, the Taliban, our international partners with whom we have been in touch about this – need to understand that we intend to continue our diplomatic presence on the ground. At a more basic level, we intend to continue that enduring partnership with the people of Afghanistan and the Government of Afghanistan.

So this shouldn’t be read as any sort of message to the Taliban. The message that the Taliban should be receiving is really the message that is emanating from Doha right now, from the United States, from the Qataris, from the litany of countries in the region and well beyond, and the international organizations that have been very clear and speaking with one voice that this rather large, broad, inclusive constellation of countries and important stakeholders will not recognize any entity that seeks to take Afghanistan by force. That’s the message the Taliban needs to be reading.

QUESTION: Ned, how is this not —

QUESTION: Ned, I’ll give you points for the old college – giving it the old college try on this. But when you talk about the message that this sends as enduring partnership, in what language does turning your tail and sending 3,000 troops in to – and you say it’s not an evacuation, but you lost that point when you said that the military, the 3,000 troops are going to be flying these drawn-down staffers out. It’s —

MR PRICE: I did not say that there would be 3,000 troops.

QUESTION: Okay. Sorry. You didn’t. Others have said that that’s the number that’s going in. But that the military, the U.S. military, is going to be – is going to be taking these people out, that is an evacuation. And I’m very cognizant of the difference between a drawdown where people leave commercially or if they drive out on their own. That’s not what this is. So I don’t understand the message of “enduring partnership” when you’re basically leaving.

MR PRICE: Matt, we can do two things at once. Let me explain.

QUESTION: You can —

MR PRICE: We can do all we can, take prudent measures to ensure the safety and security of our departing civilian personnel, which this is. This is only about that. It is solely and exclusively about doing all we can to ensure the safe relocation of our personnel, of elements of our civilian personnel, from Afghanistan. That should in no way mitigate the enduring partnership, the enduring relationship we seek to have with the people of Afghanistan.

I talked about that in humanitarian terms. I’ve talked about that in terms of the diplomacy that the U.S. is supporting between the Afghan parties, the intra-Afghan dialogue that we are supporting, hopefully on the path towards an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led political solution. I’ve talked about that in the terms of the work we have done and are doing to galvanize the international community to bring Afghanistan’s neighbors together to speak with one – and countries much farther afield to speak with one voice. So we are in no way abandoning the people in Afghanistan. Far from it. We are going to continue doing everything we can, everything we can, to bring about an Afghanistan that – in which Afghans can enjoy safety, stability, security.

Now, again, I’m not wearing rose-colored glasses. I’m not here to tell you that there aren’t significant challenges. That is very clear. It’s very clear from what we’re seeing. But our goal is, through diplomacy, through continuing support for the ANDSF, a force that far outnumbers the Taliban by a figure of more than 3 to 1, by most estimates —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) warfare in Afghanistan has never been a problem?

MR PRICE: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: I said, because asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan has never been a problem?

MR PRICE: Christina, I have been the first to tell you that this is not without its difficulties. This is not without its challenges.

QUESTION: No, I know that. But —

MR PRICE: But let me just finish, we —

QUESTION: Now, we’ve been sitting here for weeks listening to you say this, and I respect you, and like, we all know that you have a job to do. But there is no way you can sit there and say that the people of Afghanistan, watching the Taliban take over provinces, watching their country crumble, are now going to watch American diplomats get on military planes and leave the country, that that sends a signal that the U.S. is with them in the long haul, diplomatically.

MR PRICE: Look at what we’ve been doing. Look at the investment we have made in Afghanistan. Look at the investments, whether – however you measure it, whether it is humanitarian, whether it’s political, whether it’s diplomatic, whether it is the security investments that we have made. Again, we’ve cited this bullet point a couple times: President Biden’s budget requests $3.3 billion for the ANDSF going forward, a fighting force that is, at least quantitatively, much larger than what the Taliban have to muster. Look at what we’re doing diplomatically in Doha and around the world.

So again, this is about one thing, and one thing only. It’s about the priority this President attaches to the safety and security of Americans who serve in this government, civilian Americans who serve in this government. That is not a priority that we are willing to risk. And so what we are speaking about today is about that, and about that only. Again, our partnership in any number of forms with the people of Afghanistan that ultimately is aimed at bringing about – over the longer term; we know this will have challenges – an Afghanistan in which all Afghans can enjoy a measure of safety, and security, and stability. We’re not there yet. We’re not close. But that remains our goal, and we’re going to continue doing everything we can to do that.

QUESTION: Ned, I want to ask you about Western Hemisphere migration —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)


QUESTION: (Inaudible) one more on this? I’m sorry.

MR PRICE: We’ll do one more on Afghanistan.

QUESTION: All right. The fact that you have to reintroduce troops into Afghanistan in order to now pull these staffers out, the fact that it seems U.S. officials were caught off-guard by the speed of the Taliban offensive – did the administration fail to plan or fail to understand what U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan would entail, would create?

MR PRICE: Conor, I presume my Pentagon colleague will speak about this in more detail. But —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PRICE: But I just want to contextualize. This is not the reintroduction of military forces to pursue the mission that they were pursuing prior to May 1. This is the repositioning of forces to Hamid Karzai International Airport in order to help effect the safe reduction in our civilian personnel. That is the only thing this is about. This is not about re-engaging militarily in conflict in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: But does it speak to a failure to plan or to understand what would happen after U.S. troops started to leave?

MR PRICE: As – as – I started with this point and it bears repeating. All throughout, before the President announced his decision, after the President has announced his decision, before the latest surge in violence, in the context of this ongoing surge in violence, we have always been engaged in contingency planning. This was a contingency that we had foreseen. This was a contingency that we had planned for. So it is not the case that we’re being caught flat-footed. We engage in contingency planning, DOD does the same, knowing that the situation is going to be fluid. Recently the trend lines have not been moving in the right direction. Of course, our goal through diplomacy on the part of the State Department is to reverse those trend lines. But in the meantime, we have engaged in contingency planning to be prepared for a situation just like this.

Yes, please, in the back.

QUESTION: I had a question that there are some reports that suggest that the special envoy, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is trying to convince Taliban leaders to spare the U.S. embassy, attacking the U.S. embassy in Kabul, in exchange for international aid in any future government, even that includes the possibility of Taliban leaders. Is that option – is the U.S. considering that option in order to preserve and keep sort of presence in Afghanistan in case there is a fall of Kabul in the hands of Taliban?

MR PRICE: Well, again, we are not going to put too much stock, certainly, in the words of the Taliban. We are going to be looking at their deeds. But in terms of what they have said, the Taliban have said very clearly that they are not out there to target diplomatic compounds. Now, we are not going to rest on the words of a group like the Taliban. That is precisely why we are taking prudent precautions in the repositioning of these assets in order to help effect the safe reduction in our civilian personnel. But not only have the Taliban said that, but, of course, in the February 2020 U.S.-Taliban agreement, the Taliban also made assurances that our forces would not be targeted.

We have been very clear that if the Taliban go back on that commitment, whether in the context of this reduction in civilian staffing, whether in any other context, we will respond and we will respond in no uncertain terms. We have not left any ambiguity about that.

QUESTION: Ned, on a new region – this is at the border of Colombia and Panama. There are thousands of migrants that want to come here to the U.S. The Colombian Government has called it like a humanitarian tragedy and has asked the U.S. for help. What is your message to those migrants that wants to come here and to the Colombian Government, particularly to the foreign minister that is calling the U.S. so they can help Panama and Colombia in this issue?

MR PRICE: Well, of course, Colombia, is a strategic partner of ours. We work very closely with Bogota. We work very closely with the Colombian Government on any number of fronts. Colombia has, for example, generously hosted Venezuelan refugees. Colombia has been a constructive force when it comes to what we collectively are doing to try to support the democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people. We’ve been in a position to provide humanitarian assistance to the region, including to Colombia for its willingness to accept refugees from Venezuela.

At the same time, we are still very much in the midst of a pandemic, and there are certain limits on what we’re able to do at the moment. But we’ll continue to work on this very closely and support the Government of Colombia how we can.


QUESTION: How about Venezuela? Tomorrow is – are set to start the Venezuelan talks in Mexico. Nicolas Maduro has said that the first point in this agenda is a total withdrawal of the U.S. sanctions to Venezuela. Are you reviewing the sanctions? Are you willing to waive sanctions in order so the conversations keep forward – go forward?

MR PRICE: Well, we have long been committed to promoting accountability for the Maduro regime and its enablers for the actions that undermine democracy or fail to respect human rights. We’ve also been clear that the Maduro regime can create a path to easing sanctions by allowing Venezuelans to participate in long overdue free and fair presidential, parliamentary, and local elections, creating the necessary conditions to enable free and fair elections take place in Venezuela. It requires the Maduro regime to engage in sincere discussions with the opposition, led, of course, by Interim President Juan Guaido, that result in a comprehensive negotiated solution to the Venezuelan crisis.

As we noted, in the June 25th joint statement with our EU and Canadian partners, we welcome substantive, credible advancements to restore democratic processes and institutions in Venezuela, and are willing to review sanctions policies based on meaningful progress in comprehensive negotiation. But that’s what we need to see: meaningful – meaningful progress.

QUESTION: Last one, I’m sorry. About the request of President Ivan Duque to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism – are you’re reviewing this request?

MR PRICE: We make those determinations based on the facts and based on —

QUESTION: The FARC killed in Venezuela, and they even did a terrorist attack in a military base in Cucuta where American troops were.

MR PRICE: We make those determinations on a regular basis based on the facts and our assessment of them. As a matter of policy, we don’t comment on deliberations or potential deliberations related to the use of a designation authority.

Last question, please.

QUESTION: Okay, this is on media law in Poland.

MR PRICE: Ah, yes.

QUESTION: There was a strong statement by Secretary Blinken yesterday and, as I understand, Secretary Wendy Sherman spoke with the Polish authorities yesterday. But the media law seems to be going forward. So what steps are you planning to take and what is on the table now?

MR PRICE: Well, you did hear directly from Secretary Blinken yesterday on our deep concern, the very troubling developments that transpired in Poland yesterday. The Secretary of State statement speaks for itself. We are deeply troubled by the two pieces of legislation that Poland’s parliament passed yesterday. I said this yesterday, the Secretary said this in his statement, that Poland is an important NATO Ally, a NATO Ally that understands the transatlantic alliance is based on mutual commitments, mutual commitments to shared democratic values and prosperity.

So with that in mind, we urge the Government of Poland to demonstrate its commitment to these very shared principles not only in word, but also in deed. I will —

QUESTION: So what steps are you going to take now? What is on the table?

MR PRICE: So we are engaged diplomatically; you cited one step that we took. But given the level of concern, we will remain engaged on this. And both publicly, as I just did, and privately, we are urging the Government of Poland to demonstrate its commitment to these shared democratic values.


QUESTION: On Brazil, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan visited Brazil last week and expressed confidence in Brazilian electoral system. But after that, President Bolsonaro continuously says that the voting system in Brazil is not trustworthy. And this week, we saw a military parade near the congress just hours before legislators were scattered to debate a bill about the current voting system. So I have two questions. First is how does the U.S. sees this military parade in this context that we are having in Brazil right now? And the second is if President Bolsonaro continues to argue without evidence that the voting system is fraudulent, is the U.S. going to continue to engage with Brazil? Or is the U.S. going to take some other measure?

MR PRICE: Well, I don’t have a specific comment on the parade. But let me say broadly – and as you alluded to, the National Security Advisor and a delegation was in Brasilia within the past few days. We firmly believe that Brazilian authorities can carry out free and fair elections that represent the will of Brazilian voters, as they have on many occasions in the past. During National Security Advisor Sullivan’s trip to Brazil, he stressed the importance of not undermining confidence in the election process, especially since there were no signs of fraud in prior elections. That was his message. That will continue to be the message we reiterate. Thank you all very much.

QUESTION: Wait, Ned. I have a non-Afghan, non-contentious question, and it’s extremely brief.


QUESTION: It has to do with Bahrain. So if you don’t have an answer at the top, I guess it can be taken. And it’s just about – there are numerous prisoners who are deemed by human rights groups as being political prisoners in Bahrain. There’s a academic who’s on a hunger strike now – now in a month – a month into it. And groups have been asking the U.S. to get behind calls for these – for the release of this one guy, but also others more generally. Is this something that has been brought up with Bahraini officials recently by this administration?

MR PRICE: I don’t know enough about the case offhand, so we’ll see if we can get you some information on that.

QUESTION: Anything in general on this – the general situation would be good.

MR PRICE: Great.


MR PRICE: Will do. Thank you all very much.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:47 p.m.)

U.S. Department of State

The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future