Secretary Rubio’s Call with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
Readout
March 23, 2025
The below is attributable to Spokesperson Tammy Bruce:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to emphasize U.S. support for Israel. The Secretary discussed Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza, and efforts to help release the hostages and bring them home. The Secretary also conveyed the Administration’s determination to restore freedom of navigation in the Red Sea through military operations against the Iranian-backed Houthis.
Press Briefing on CBP Home App with Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Joe Salazar, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.
03/24/2025
You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Homeland Security
Joseph "Joe" Salazar, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Amanda Roberson, the deputy director of the U.S. State Department’s Miami Media Hub. We welcome journalists who have joined from the United States and across Latin America. This is an on-the-record press briefing in English with simultaneous interpretation in Spanish. We are fortunate to have Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Joe Salazar, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. State Department.
Assistant Secretary McLaughlin will discuss the new CBP Home program that offers unlawfully present illegal immigrants the opportunity to voluntarily depart the United States. Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Salazar will be available to answer questions related to the Department of State. We will begin this hub call with opening remarks from Assistant Secretary McLaughlin, then I will moderate questions from journalists.
For simultaneous Spanish language interpretation, please look for the globe symbol on the Zoom platform and then select the audio language you prefer. We ask that you please write your name and affiliation in the user label on Zoom to help us identify you correctly during the question session.
And as a reminder, today’s briefing is on the record, attributable to Assistant Secretary McLaughlin, from whom we will hear now.
Assistant Secretary McLaughlin, please go ahead.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Thanks so much, Amanda. As many of you on this call know, earlier this month U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced that DHS launched the CBP Home app with a self-deportation reporting feature for aliens illegally in our country. We launched the CBP Home app to give aliens an easy way to leave now and self-deport so they may still have the opportunity to return the legal, right way in the future and live the American dream. The incentive is clear. If they don’t self-deport, we will find them, we will deport them, and they will not return.
Self-deportation is also the safest option for illegal aliens, while preserving our law enforcement resources. Not only is it safer, but it also saves U.S. taxpayer dollars and valuable CBP and ICE resources to focus on dangerous criminal aliens.
Just last week, President Donald Trump released a video from the Resolute Desk, underscoring that people in our country illegally can self-deport the easy way or get deported the hard way.
Today, DHS is also announcing a new capability in the CBP Home app: the ability to verify departure. We’re offering aliens who choose to self-deport an ability to notify the U.S. Government of their departure from the United States, giving them the capability to provide biographic data from their passports or other travel documents, facial images, and geolocation to prove that they have exited. The alien must be at least three miles outside the United States to successfully utilize this feature. While the use of the verify departure functionality is optional, if the alien chooses to use it, they must submit a facial image. It’s required.
The bottom line is the Biden administration exploited the CBP One app to allow more than 1 million aliens to illegally enter the United States. The Trump Administration launching of the CBP Home app is restoring integrity into our immigration system.
And with that, we’ll take your questions.
MODERATOR: Thank you. So we will begin with a question from Yazmin Velasco from RPTV Colombia. The question is: “What safeguards does the app offer to prevent abuse or undue pressures on migrants?”
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: And I can take that one. We have a number of safeguards featured in the app. That includes privacy so that there’s no leakage of personal information. We have implanted precautions to maintain that confidentiality and integrity, and that is in the CBP system. So we take that incredibly seriously, whether it be for a U.S. citizen or an illegal alien as well.
MODERATOR: The next question is from Lilia Moyado from RCN Colombia. Lilia, could you please unmute yourself to ask your question now? Lilia, go ahead if you’re ready to ask your question.
QUESTION: (No response.)
MODERATOR: Okay, and as we wait for Lilia, I’ll go ahead with another question. This one is from – sorry, this one is from Carlos Albino: “How can a person find out how they qualify for self-deportation?”
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Well, if you’re in the country illegally, you certainly qualify for self-deportation. And I also think that new feature that we’ve unveiled today, that verify departure, it’s a excellent way to potentially re-enter the country in the future legally, because this feature is able to provide evidence of a verifiable exit, which then these aliens are demonstrating compliance with U.S. immigration laws, and that could be used for the future for a visa or for travel applications.
MODERATOR: Okay, the next question is from Jesús García from La Opinión. Jesús, please, you may unmute yourself and ask your question now.
QUESTION: Good morning, thank you for doing this. Well, good afternoon. I have a couple of questions about this – related with the CBP One – CBP Home, sorry. The U.S. Government is asking immigrants to leave the U.S. under this application and promising the possibility to return legally. How case these people apply to that benefit to return legally to the United States without the Immigration and Nationality Act punishments for three, five, or 10 years to enter to the United States?
I don’t know if the next question, which is related with the U.S. Department of State relation with Latin America, can apply now or later.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: I did not catch the last question. But again, I believe the answer is to use that verify departure feature and show that record that you are – the alien is complying with U.S. immigration laws, and that can help expedite and put folks in a good position to get a visa or travel application.
MODERATOR: Okay, the next question is from Andrés Fidanza, El Observador. Andrés, could you please unmute yourself and ask your question?
QUESTION: Hi. Here, can you hear me? Yes, I think so.
MODERATOR: Yes, please ask your question.
QUESTION: Very good, thank you very much. What expectation do you have regarding the number of people who might use the self-deportation system, I don’t know, in the coming few months?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: We’re trying to incentivize as many individuals here illegally as possible to use it. As far as a data or metric, I don’t have any available at this time, but we do anticipate unleashing some of those numbers here in the coming weeks in addition to unveiling some new features for this app. But I think, again, we want to get the word out and incentivize as many people as possible to self-deport, because it is safer for these migrants and it is safer for our law enforcement and it also, of course, saves U.S. taxpayer dollars.
MODERATOR: Okay, the next question is from Eddy Sarmiento from Enter504 in Honduras. Eddy asks – he says, “Immigrants worry about the wait time and the treatment and whether they will go to jail after being deported. Can you expand on this?”
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: The best way to ensure you are not arrested if you are in this country illegally or detained and deported is if you self-deport yourself. So that’s what I encourage every person in this country illegally to do. If you do self-deport, you will potentially have the opportunity to return the legal and right way, so if you self-deport, it keeps that possibility open.
MODERATOR: Okay. The next question is from Christian Galarza from La Voz de la Frontera: “How many permits were delayed after the closure of CBP One? And if you can provide details on which permits they plan to – you plan to issue through CBP One.”
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Well, CBP One does not exist anymore. Anyone who had the previous version of the CBP app was pushed an automatic update upgrading to the CBP Home app. As far as permits go, I don’t have an answer for you at this time.
MODERATOR: Okay. Next a question from Sindy Medina: “Once someone who is in the country illegally processes their auto – their self-deportation, how much time do they have to leave the United States?”
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Well, they have to be – if they’re using the verify departure feature, they have to be at least three miles out of the country.
MODERATOR: Okay. And the next question is from Iris Berrios from Telemundo. Iris, could you please unmute yourself and ask your question?
QUESTION: Hi, hello, good afternoon. I would like to know how many people so far have applied for the CBP Home, and also if the people who were under CBP One, if they’re going immediately under the CBP Home.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Yes, so it automatically – the CBP One app automatically re-uploads in your – on your iPhone, Android, or other smart device as CBP Home. As far as metrics for the number of people who have already chosen to self-deport or download the app, I should have metrics here in the coming weeks, as well as more announcements on new features and functionalities for the CBP One app. But I do want to see if Joseph Salazar has anything to add.
MR SALAZAR: Not on this topic, no.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Thanks, Joseph.
MODERATOR: Okay. The next question is from Cedê Silva from O Fator. Cedê, please ask your question now.
QUESTION: Thank you. I would like to take advantage of the presence of Mr. Salazar to ask if there’s any developments on the news about closing U.S. embassy posts or consulates abroad, especially the U.S. embassy branch office in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Thank you.
MR SALAZAR: Thanks for the question. It’s not entirely relevant to what the presentation is today. Nevertheless, we have no news at this time to share regarding any closures in Brazil or elsewhere throughout the world.
MODERATOR: Okay. The next question is from Uriel Vásquez from Despacho55*. Uriel, please unmute and ask your question.
QUESTION: Hi. I’d like to – what will happen to Nicaraguan migrants who self-deport if the Nicaraguan Government does not accept them back? Is the Government of Nicaragua (inaudible)?
MR SALAZAR: I can take that question. Would you mind repeating, Uriel?
QUESTION: Yeah. I’d like to know what will happen with Nicaraguans who wants to self-deport if the Nicaraguan Government does not accept them back. Is the Government of Nicaragua accepting (inaudible)?
MR SALAZAR: Thanks, Uriel, for the question. Look, these are not negotiations with the Government of Nicaragua or any of the governments. The United States fully expects the authorities of these different countries, including Nicaragua, to abide by the demands that we have outlined publicly. Every country, including especially the United States, has a right to deport illegal immigrants in our country, and every country has a responsibility to accept their own citizens back to their country. So the United States will ensure the prompt deportation of illegal aliens, and we will work with those partner countries to ensure that these citizens are accepted back into their home country.
MODERATOR: The next question is from Nancy Salguero from Diario El Salvador: “Could you tell us more about the visit of the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to El Salvador?”
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you for your question. Secretary Kristi Noem will be visiting El Salvador on Wednesday the 26th of March. I can share more information here shortly. But the bottom line is our partner countries are incredibly important partners in deporting these individuals, these criminal aliens in our country, and she’ll also be talking about the CBP Home app and how we can be utilizing that to have self – safe self-deportations.
MODERATOR: Okay. The next question is from Jesús García from La Opinión in Mexico. This is a question for Mr. Salazar: “How are the negotiations with Mexico on immigration? Is there any progress on implementing the ‘Remain in Mexico’ program?”
MR SALAZAR: Yeah, unfortunately, I can’t comment on any ongoing negotiations or discussions. Just know that they are obviously very sensitive, but we appreciate the partnership that we have with the Government of Mexico. Both our countries are – share a commitment to end the crisis of illegal immigration that has impacted adversely both of our countries. Over.
MODERATOR: Thank you. The next question is from Stephanie Ochoa from Univision. Stephanie, you can please unmute yourself and ask your question.
QUESTION: Hi, how are you? So you have said that you don’t have the metrics right now about how many people have applied for self-deportation, but this CBP Home application has been active since the beginning of this month. So we should assume nobody has applied yet to self-deport?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: No, that’s not a correct assumption. Like I said, we’ll – we’re going to be making announcements on metrics as well as new features and new functionalities for this app.
QUESTION: Is there – is there any approximate number?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Like I said, when we have the announcement, we will make sure you all are aware.
QUESTION: Thank you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: And one other thing I did want to add. Secretary Noem’s travel schedule for Wednesday, March 26th to El Salvador – it might be helpful for this group. She’s going to be touring the Terrorist Confinement Center with the minister of justice, and then she’ll be meeting with President Bukele. Thank you.
MODERATOR: The next question is from Diego Guzmán from La Hora in Guatemala: “Are there campaigns in the so-called sanctuary cities to encourage illegal migrants to self-deport?”
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Can you repeat that question? Sorry, it broke up on my end.
MODERATOR: Yes. “Are there any campaigns in the so-called sanctuary cities to encourage illegal migrants to self-deport?”
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, absolutely. The CBP Home app is part of a broader $200 million campaign that encourages aliens to self-deport. I also think there is pressure from individuals in these sanctuary communities that they’re tired of seeing crime at the hands of people who are in the country illegally, and they’re pressuring their city councils, mayors, and elected officials to change these policies. Until then, we will continue to press the message that we will find these individuals who are here illegally, we will arrest them, and they will be deported. So the best option for everyone involved is to leave now, and you can do so easily using the CBP Home app.
MODERATOR: The next question is from Gabriela Perozo from VPItv. Gabriela, you can ask your question now.
QUESTION: Hi. Good afternoon. People who had the humanitarian parole, how much time do they have to register in this CBP Home and leave the country, if you do that? And if you have any updates related to humanitarian parole. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Currently, the aliens – every alien, this is available to them to use. There’s no timeline, but their timing is of the essence because we do have ICE enforcement agents who are now empowered to do their jobs, and we are making arrests very quickly. We’ve arrested more aliens in this country in the last 50-60 days than the – all of last year. So we’re moving swift, but there’s no exact timeline. But we do encourage everyone to do this now and encourage those family members, loved ones, and colleagues who they know who are in the country illegally to use this very easy and accessible free app.
MODERATOR: The next question is from Yolanda Magaña from the daily El Mundo in El Salvador: “Will there be any preferential treatment for Salvadorans due to the agreement reached between the U.S. Government and President Nayib Bukele?”
MR SALAZAR: I can take that. The agreement between the United States and El Salvador, there was – these were not negotiations; these were not quid pro quo or any sort of agreements made by that. There is no preferential treatment regarding illegal immigration in the United States.
MODERATOR: Okay, the next question is from Valerie Gonzalez from the AP. Valerie, please unmute and ask your question.
QUESTION: Hi, yes. Thank you so much for taking my question. Will the countries that will be receiving people who self-deport be notified of people coming their way? Is there kind of any shared intelligence regarding this process?
MR SALAZAR: I can take that, Tricia.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Please go ahead.
MR SALAZAR: Similar to the way we have traditionally deported illegal migrants under this administration, under the previous administration, going back long before, pre-notification is the norm for us – to notify our partner countries of their nationals coming back to their country – and that is done in a coordinated fashion with them.
QUESTION: Thank you so much.
MODERATOR: The next question is from Carlos López from elsalvador.com. Carlos, you can unmute and ask your question, please.
QUESTION: Hello, good afternoon. Yeah, I would like to know if the people chooses to self-deport, is there any reason or the Government of the U.S. is actually thinking about sending them to El Salvador’s jails, actually the CECOT? Thank you very much.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Thanks, Carlos. No. If an individual decides to self-deport and leave now, they will not be detained; they will just exit the country and they can show verification of so in the verify departure feature of the app.
MODERATOR: Okay, the next question is from Abel Domínguez. Abel asks: “Why are the – why are people referred to as illegal migrants if they had a interview under the previous administration for asylum? Were there irregularities in the process of asylum during the Biden administration?”
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: Yes, there was very much irregularities in the vetting process. Laws were not implemented or executed. And so yes, these individuals are illegal aliens under the – this administration, who is actually implementing and enforcing immigration laws that are currently signed into law.
MODERATOR: Okay, this will be our last question, from Lester Herrera in Honduras: “Are illegal individuals in the process of document applications being given the option to remain while awaiting a resolution?”
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MCLAUGHLIN: These – I mean, these are handled on a case-by-case basis.
MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes today’s briefing. We appreciate the participation of journalists and our U.S. Government speakers, Assistant Secretary McLaughlin and Deputy Assistant Secretary Salazar. An English audio recording and transcript of this hub call will be available on state.gov. If you have any questions, you may contact the Miami Media Hub at MiamiHub@state.gov. Thank you very much for joining this virtual briefing today.
Department Press Briefing – March 24, 2025
03/24/2025
You are subscribed to Department Press Briefings for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
MS BRUCE: Thank you, everyone. How are you? I looked up at a couple of my briefings and noticed that I looked a bit too much like peat bog man, so I got a haircut. (Laughter.) It’s funny when you look and you’re so busy and you look around and I thought, oh, this has got to be a little bit better. So that’s what I’ve done.
All right, thank you very much for joining us. Another full room, and I appreciate that very much. Lots going on, obviously. Let’s start, though, with an announcement that many of you know already.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to Jamaica, Guyana, and Suriname March 26th through 27th to advance President Trump’s foreign policy priorities in the Caribbean. While in Jamaica, the Secretary will hold bilateral engagements with heads of state from Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and Haiti. Secretary Rubio’s engagements with our valued Caribbean partners will promote regional cooperation and which is we’re working on, of course, to end illegal immigration, counter transnational organized crime, strengthen regional actions to address Haiti’s political and security challenges, and strengthen the United States economic partnership with Caribbean countries.
And that’s my announcement. We’re going to be doing that starting on Wednesday. A number of you are going to be joining us in what for the Americans and people around the world watching, we have reporters who are stationed here at the State Department, and their coverage, their beat, is the State Department, and they even travel with us. And that’s always fun, so I’m looking forward to that once again.
And we will start, dare I say, with Matt Lee.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS BRUCE: With the Associated Press.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Tammy, and thanks for the trip announcement.
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: So over the course of the last day or so, embassies and consulates around the world appeared in what looks like it’s a concerted social messaging campaign, have been posting tweets and Facebook accounts, some of which are somewhat aggressive and warning people not to come to the United States if they are planning to protest or cause riots or break laws. My question is this: Because it has always been an offense to not truthfully answer questions on a visa application form, which include your past and what your intents are, what you plan to do in the U.S., it has always been an offense that you could be – have your visa revoked or deported if you are found to be lying on this. I’m curious why it is that there is this —
MS BRUCE: We should hire you. A very good explanation.
QUESTION: — coordinated effort – (laughter) – coordinated effort to get this message out now, in some cases using this kind of aggressive language like, you lie to us, you’re out, that kind of thing.
MS BRUCE: Well, I think that it’s clear that it’s a conversation that has not been happening for a while. Certain issues are in the news right now. It’s an important – there’s a lot of new things that the world is hearing from a new administration, the Trump Administration, which is in office because of its commitment to make America great again, certainly safe again, secure again, more prosperous.
The Secretary of State, obviously, as you’ve heard quite often, has remarked on that. And part of that is what Americans see and what has been happening over the last several years when it comes to certain violence, certain attitudes, a rise in antisemitism, and of course, in some public cases which I won’t be speaking on. But for citizens who – of other countries who want to come to America, I think it’s reasonable their own countries – there are certainly some countries which are reminding their citizens that if you are going to be going to the United States, or really the argument could be to any other country, is follow the law, behave yourselves, be a good visitor, and you’ll be fine.
But I think the nature of any kind of warning or reminder, as it should be, as you noted, is appropriate considering the nature of the things we have been reminding people about, which is a visa is not an entitlement; a visa and a green card are not birthrights. These are privileges. You are granted them because of what you present to the United States in trying to get it. Consular officers also talk with people and they ask you questions about why you want to come. Every sovereign nation in the world has an interest in controlling who comes in, knowing who’s coming into their country, what their intentions are. We’ve learned this over the last several decades about the importance of security at points of entry. The world knows it and so do we, and it is a good reminder, and we look forward to people taking it seriously.
All right. Yes, Andrea Mitchell.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Tammy. I know the administration has always been concerned about operational security for military actions and others, things that are classified. There has been an unprecedented, to my experience, breach of operational security by a public dissemination on Signal of plans for the Houthi attacks and discussions about those plans that included in – and has been confirmed by the National Security Council – these included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, on this Signal chat over a course of several days. And we should note that Mr. Goldberg did not publicize any of the classified members, CIA people, who were on this chat, nor any of the classified information on the ultimate day two hours before the attacks took place. He thought he was being punked, that it was some sort of a trap, but eventually notified the White House about this, and the White House has confirmed that it’s authentic. Secretary Rubio was part of all of these conversations.
First of all, why was the cabinet secretaries and the national security cabinet discussing a potential military operation on Signal, which is a public app? And why didn’t they notice a phone number that was not part of their group? And how concerned is the Secretary about the implications of this?
MS BRUCE: Well, I have two very short things to say to you. First is that we will not comment on the Secretary’s deliberative conversations; and secondly, that you should contact the White House.
QUESTION: But in this regard, this was a very extensive series of conversations involving a very important military action, and the Secretary of State is the leader of foreign policy. Shouldn’t he have an opinion about this?
MS BRUCE: Well, from this podium, I am not going to comment and never would I comment in any framework the Secretary’s deliberative conversations in any regard.
All right. All right. Yes, Daphne.
QUESTION: But are you concerned about the breach of security?
MS BRUCE: I’m not – I’ve said it twice and I appreciate your persistence. It’s why you’re who you are, but I won’t be commenting on that particular framework.
All right, Daphne, go ahead.
QUESTION: Could I move to Russia-Ukraine?
MS BRUCE: I wish you wouldn’t, but yes, of course.
QUESTION: Trump said today that territory was being discussed, so I just wanted to follow up on some comments that Witkoff made over the weekend about Crimea, Donbas, and regions annexed by Russia. He said that the question is will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories. Is it the administration’s view that Russia has a legitimate claim to these regions?
MS BRUCE: What I can tell you first of all, of course, is I’m not going to speculate, and once again there’s – because of the approach of this administration, there are a lot of diplomatic talks going on. There’s a lot of summits happening. There’s a lot of conversations happening, the supermajority of which I cannot comment on to you about those kinds of discussions or the commentary from which they may or may not have gleaned from.
What we do know – and I would refer back to the nature of what we are trying to do here, and what we’ve said is first and foremost in our mind there is one thing in front of us that everyone is doing, and that is to secure the peace of that region, of those two countries, which – more even than the region, the entire world. And that’s the singular thing that is being worked on right now in Saudi Arabia. It is the singular thing that the President has been focused on. It is what the Secretary has been working on pretty much from day one, which – what’s – what are we in, the ninth week at this point?
And dramatic changes have already occurred. Fabulous changes have occurred because of the focus, and there is really no other way to do it. You’ve got to have a dynamic that you’re going to convince people that they can embrace and agree to, and the only way to do that is to stay with a framework that doesn’t change, doesn’t morph, where there’s not distractions that you’re led away from the focus on what it is we’re trying to accomplish.
So that’s what we’re dealing with in this regard, and I think just a reminder that until there is a ceasefire – a full ceasefire, that’s when – as the President has noted and certainly the Secretary, that until there is a ceasefire, that’s when we can then discuss the differences in what proceeds after that when it comes to an enduring peace.
Yes.
QUESTION: Thanks, Tammy. Can I switch to the Middle East, or did you want to stay on Russia?
MS BRUCE: Well, we’re – do we have any more Ukraine-Russia? Yes, sir, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. Just to follow up on the question my colleague asked, I understand you don’t want to comment on Witkoff’s comments. Some of them were reflecting Russian viewpoint. Ukrainians do appreciate this administration’s effort to solve the problem, but they don’t trust you. When they hear what we’ve heard in the interview, how do you want to build that trust in Ukrainian side?
MS BRUCE: Well, again, I think that this is why I urge people to look at the nature of what we’re accomplishing here and what the end result is. This is – it’s not a TV show. This is people working to get to an end result that everyone agrees with. There is no one in the world who wants any of this to continue. There is – the people involved, the innocent people on the ground, the world itself – we know all of this affects each one of us. Multiple countries are involved in one fashion or another, and this is about getting to an end point that the world has agreed upon and that all of us agree upon. And we can talk about other interviews or what someone might say, but the fact is – it’s – even when the Secretary has been asked about whether he trusts Putin, the fact is – and I’ll – I just go back to his point when asked about that. This isn’t about trust or if – who you’re dealing with and whether or not you like them or you don’t or what that dynamic is.
The question is, what do you end with? Is it something that makes the difference in what everyone wants? Is it what we all agree on, and what is going to get us to that north star of making sure that the slaughter stops? There’s – again, we still deal with every day, even with this work, the people that were alive yesterday are not alive today; people that are alive today are not going to be alive tomorrow. And the focus has to remain in that framework. And the only thing that brings us to that point are the conversations that are happening, the technical discussions now happening in Saudi Arabia, conversations between presidents, and maneuverings and negotiations and diplomatic conversations that get us to a point of peace. That is the only thing when we think about the next day that matters and that takes us to that point.
QUESTION: May I also —
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS BRUCE: All right.
QUESTION: May I also get your comment —
QUESTION: Follow-up, Ukraine?
QUESTION: — your reaction to attack to Sumy region this afternoon?
MS BRUCE: I’m sorry, to the what, sir?
QUESTION: Sumy region of Ukraine got attacked, where they targeted residential buildings, hospitals. Over 90 people got injured, 17 of them are children. Any reaction to that, please?
MS BRUCE: All of us decry the impact – this is why we do the work we do – on civilians. And it is why we continue to work for the ceasefire, and what the negotiations in Saudi are right now is to get that commitment and to get that done. So that’s why we’re doing what we do, because of the results like that that in any war are problematic and heartbreaking and we want to stop and reverse. So that’s the point of why we’re doing what we’re doing right now.
QUESTION: Still on Ukraine.
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you. Following up on this story that happened last week about the termination of a grant to the Yale initiative – research initiative and trying to track down Ukrainian children that had been taken by Russia. You mentioned last week in this room that the data exists; it’s not been deleted.
MS BRUCE: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: We also got a comment from the State Department saying that the department does not hold the data for the Conflict Observatory; the data resides on a platform owned by MITRE as part of the program. And we were referred to MITRE. In terms of, like, evidence of where these children have gone and when you’re dealing with courts of law, is this data something that even if it’s sitting somewhere on someone else’s server, like MITRE, is it overseen or controlled by the U.S. Government in terms of making sure that it’s not been tampered with? And is there a concern that with that particular initiative – the grant of that initiative terminated, is there a concern that a delay – that there’s a delay in the work that these researchers were doing in terms of, like, more of a search and rescue of these particular 30,000 children now being hindered?
MS BRUCE: Well, as you noted – and I will confirm again – is that the data exists. What I will say to your question is that we know it is secure, and that is all I’ll discuss about the nature of where it sits and where it is. It’s secure.
I will also mention something I had mentioned to you actually earlier, which is that this data and this kind of a program, we’ve – the grant has been stopped, of course, but it doesn’t mean just because something has changed, as this has, that it disappears or stops or becomes something that we can’t use. So I would just remind you that there is a variety of dynamics that are occurring when it comes to the world knowing about those missing children, the nature of – I know the President, President Trump’s concern about those missing children, the world is concerned, and the fact – to say the least – Ukraine has been advocating for this. They’ve been passionate about saving their nation and certainly getting those children back from Russia. And I think that this is – when we think about now the nature of the negotiations or certainly the conversations, that is part of those conversations, and it’s something that we all hope will be resolved sooner than later.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Are we ready to move on to the Middle East, or you want to —
MS BRUCE: I think we should. Sure. Let’s do it.
QUESTION: So two topics for you; I’ll squeeze them in back-to-back. Mahmoud Khalil – there was a DOJ brief filing with the court regarding his case. And one of the assertions in there was that he had failed to mention part of his resume, part of his history. And one of the things that DOJ brought up was his work with UNRWA. So I know you can’t comment on a particular visa case. I’m not going to ask; I know the drill. But in a larger perspective, does the State Department now look upon work with UNRWA as a potential negative when applying for a green card or other visa? That’s question one.
Question two. On Friday, Dorothy Shea, who heads up on an interim basis the U.S. Mission to the UN, called Security Council Resolution 2334 “a mistake.” It’s been for the most part the defining policy around settlements for a while now, other than the first Trump admin. The spokesman for the mission told me there’s been no change in policy, her statement doesn’t reflect a change in policy. But obviously, she calls it a mistake, and it means something. What is the position right now of the Trump admin and the State Department on Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line? Are we going back to the Pompeo doctrine? Is it going to be used as leverage to expand the Abraham Accords, which Vice President Vance brought up today? What is the position?
MS BRUCE: So much speculation. I’ve just got to get my speculation book out. I can’t – I’m not going to speculate; I’m not going to guess what’s in the minds of diplomats, and diplomats are involved, including an ambassador and her statement. I – I’m – I’ve – I’m not going to speculate on any of that, what they mean, or what other leaders are going to do or not do. And I appreciate we all have questions about certain things. What I can say – well, now I have to say what I can say about what I can’t say regarding your first question – is that you mention, of course, that there are court filings. And you mentioned the detail of what you say is in a court filing. I’m not going to expand on that either.
So what I can say in general is what the Secretary has said, what the President has said, what I have said on numerous occasions, and as brought up here just a little bit ago as well when it comes to the nature of messaging regarding visas and what the United States expects and I think what every nation expects: When someone is knocking on the door saying, “Can we come in,” America’s answer to that has usually been a resounding, “Yes, please do, using the regular legal system to do it.” But the reason that system works is because there is order to it. And we have expectations to what it is you say to us. And if you have an order and expectations and they’re – they’re never enforced or it doesn’t matter, and other people see that, it means that none of the laws mean anything, the regulations don’t mean anything, and there is – you’re not even really a nation, with – you’re a nation effectively without borders and controls. And no nation operates in that fashion.
So it’s not – again, certainly not commenting on any particular filing or any particular case. If you lie in your efforts to come to the United States to get a visa for any reason, or for a green card, maybe there haven’t been repercussions, or we haven’t done things properly in the past. A lot of things have changed with the election of Donald Trump as the American people have said, what has happened in the past in now unacceptable, we see the impact on people’s lives, everybody’s lives, and we now – it’s not anything new; we want to have the order back. We want to have the rules, the expectations, the values back to how we make our decisions.
So it is an important message, it’s a normal message, it’s a reasonable message, and it’s important, and especially for those when there’s certainly a court argument or if you have lied, if you’ve misrepresented what you were going to do here, there has to be a response to that for a nation to be able to be taken seriously by its own people who rely on it to keep them safe.
All right.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on the visa issue?
MS BRUCE: Yes, sir. Yes.
QUESTION: Hi. Changing the subject; I’m sorry.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS BRUCE: Clearly – well, hold on now. So keep that in mind. So now —
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Tammy —
MS BRUCE: Where – Nadia, where were you going? Hold on, all of you, I – you’re right here in front me. I’m willing to stay here as long as I need to. Yes, ma’am. Nadia.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions, but I want to follow up on the application. Just to be clear. So you’re saying that Mahmoud Khalil has lied on the application because —
MS BRUCE: Oh, I never – I never commented on his case. I never said that he did at all.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS BRUCE: I’m saying that if anyone coming here, when you are filing – if you’re trying to get a visa or anything else – I didn’t – I never spoke about him and what he did or did not do.
QUESTION: Fair enough. Fair enough. I’ll take this one back.
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: Fair enough. But what my question to you is – for example, the evidence was taken against him that he was a member of UNRWA.
MS BRUCE: Nadia, I have to tell you, I’m not going to remark at all on a particular case. It’s not going to happen.
QUESTION: Okay, fine. Let me try – let me try again, different way. Do you think that if —
MS BRUCE: Last chance.
QUESTION: Last chance.
MS BRUCE: Three strikes here.
QUESTION: Do you believe that if somebody is a member of UNRWA, of the UN organization, and they did not disclose that if they apply for a visa —
MS BRUCE: Yeah, I —
QUESTION: — for somebody who was coming, since UNRWA is not a terrorist organization, are they denied a visa or not?
MS BRUCE: Again, this is – this is related to a court filing regarding a specific case, including also we don’t talk about visas in the specific dynamic there. I am – I’m not going to speculate or confirm or not confirm any dynamic that belongs to consular officers, to laws, to court filings that occur, or to the visa process for individuals. I’m not going to do that. And so I’m sorry. I would love to be able to answer your question, but I can’t. Yes.
QUESTION: It’s okay.
QUESTION: On the Middle East?
MS BRUCE: Yes, go ahead. Yes.
QUESTION: Has Israel briefed the United States on its plans for a renewed ground operation, and is this something that the U.S. supports, a massive ground operation into Gaza?
MS BRUCE: Again, if there was a conversation about that, it is not something that I’m going to share the details with anybody anywhere. It’s not personal.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. support a ground operation?
MS BRUCE: I’m not going to comment or speculate or anything in that regard when it comes to something as serious as negotiations in an area where there’s a conflict that we are working every day to stop. And we’ve been the lead in the ceasefire aspects, we’ve been the lead in bridges to the next steps, and we are dealing with a terrorist organization that cannot remain at all in that region because of – because of what they do. They then continue the suffering, and there is just – it’s the simplest thing in the world. Hamas could release the hostages, which they still have, and the bodies of those that they’ve killed, and they could lay down their arms, and the suffering would end. All of this would end. And the questions come back, understandably, to the State Department, to Marco Rubio, to envoys, to people trying to get it to stop, about one thing, or why haven’t you done this, or would you do this. It is – Hamas has its one step it could take, and the carnage could end.
And I – it’s – I appreciate what you’re asking, but I have certain limits in what I can express when it comes to the way decisions get made. But what we do know is that decisions have been getting made that have stopped the fighting, that have given us the first glimmer of hope in ages, and we’re going to continue that kind of work because we do care and we are determined to get peace, and we’re the closest we’ve been in most areas than we’ve been in ages. And that needs to continue.
Yes, sir, in the back.
QUESTION: May I follow up on that?
MS BRUCE: Not – not at this moment.
Yes, sir, in the back.
QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. I have a question on Ukraine and the European – if I can go back a little bit. My question – my first question is: On which level the European Union will be involved in the talk in Saudi Arabia, if they will be involved? And the second one, if you can give us some more glimpse of the talk – what can you – like, something that you can share with us, like, related to the ceasefire, the Black Sea, or the part of – are we talking about part of Ukraine that’s going to be given to Russia or other left to Kyiv? Can you give us a little more?
MS BRUCE: Well, I – I’d already mentioned before on being asked about —
QUESTION: Please.
MS BRUCE: — comments on issues after a ceasefire. There is one thing we’re working on: that’s a ceasefire. I have nothing to say about what comes after a ceasefire, which has to be manifested in full, and we are close to that. This is what’s fascinating. We’ve never been closer, a breath away, from a full ceasefire, and then – full stop – then a discussion about an enduring peace. It’s doable. Humanity has done it in the past, we can do it again, but it’s never – this is the time where there has to be new ideas, where this dynamic has to stop. What I can tell you in general – you mentioned the Black Sea – is we do have negotiating teams, of course. They’re meeting in Saudi Arabia to discuss broadening the ceasefire to the Black Sea on the way to the full ceasefire, which is always the prize – that’s the prize right now; there’s no other prize – to fully restore peaceful commercial activity. The Black Sea, of course, is key to that.
We are continuing contact with both Russia and Ukraine. We’re committing – we’re committed to continuing our work to bridge that gap. As the Secretary said repeatedly, both sides will have to make compromises as we are working in this ceasefire range. President Zelenskyy has agreed on a partial ceasefire against energy infrastructure and has reiterated his willingness to adopt a full ceasefire. And there’s certainly the aspect of, possibility of while these situations, these technical negotiations, are going on now, that we hope to see where the parties have landed. And our work is about coming to an agreement about how we’re going to make this happen, but the Black Sea is now directly discussed, and let’s hope we have some success here.
QUESTION: What of European involvement?
MS BRUCE: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS BRUCE: And is – gentleman here in the —
QUESTION: I have a couple question on Gaza —
MS BRUCE: And you are, sir?
QUESTION: Shihab Rattansi, Al Jazeera English.
MS BRUCE: Terrific. How do you do? All right.
QUESTION: Nice to meet you. Reuters reports that the U.S. and Hamas have accepted —
MS BRUCE: Good old Reuters.
QUESTION: — a ceasefire – (laughter) – a ceasefire, I’m told; a ceasefire proposal from Egypt, but Israel has yet to respond. Is that your understanding?
MS BRUCE: I don’t have an understanding about what might be negotiations or – nor am I going to speculate or guess. We, of course – things we do know is that the Egyptians care about this situation. There is the Arab plan. We know that has been discussed. We know how the Arab plan has not met the requirements of the Trump Administration in a couple of instances and when it comes to certainly Gazans and their safety in this process. So no, I don’t have a comment on that.
QUESTION: The Israelis have killed two more journalists – Hossam Shabat of Al Jazeera Mubasher; Mohammad Mansour of Palestine Today. That brings the number to 208. Each one was individually targeted. The IDF says they used extensive intelligence gathering and precise munitions – Shabat killed in his car, Mansour in his house. The Committee to Protect Journalists has once again noted that the deliberate targeted killing of journalists is a war crime. Do you have any comment?
MS BRUCE: I would say that every single thing that’s happening is a result of Hamas and its choices to drag that region down into a level of suffering that has been excruciating and has caused innumerable deaths. And of course, their reaction on October 7th, when there was a ceasefire and people were living in some relative peace, they decided to break that with an atrocity that was just – certainly the most Jews killed in a single framework than during the Holocaust. And we also, I can tell you, we stand by Israel and its needs as it defends itself through this period of time, as we also work with them so that they don’t need to defend themselves from the barbarity of an entity that has destroyed lives for generations and continues to.
QUESTION: But we’re talking about killing journalists.
MS BRUCE: So for everyone who has – for everyone, so many people, who do so many jobs and who have lived different lives, and the children and the babies who didn’t have a chance to seek their fortunes or their life dreams because of the barbarity of certain people who think that murder is the only way to move through life.
QUESTION: Is it a war crime to kill journalists?
MS BRUCE: And I’m not – I’m certainly – you know I’m not going to stand here and declare what’s a war crime and what isn’t. But what we do know is a crime is the mass slaughter of any individuals, certainly the targeting of people simply because of who they are, that Jew hatred is a signal regarding the barbarity and the nature of who it is you’re dealing with. The world knows that if you don’t stop it and don’t confront it as it bares its ugly face, it will not stop. And that is —
QUESTION: But you —
MS BRUCE: That is part of what this world now has decided that when we say never again, we mean never again.
QUESTION: But the principle that it’s a war crime to kill journalists —
MS BRUCE: All right, behind. Behind Nadia here. Yes, sir, go ahead. Yep, thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you so much. Tammy, a question on the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and the Popular Mobilization Forces, PMF. The Iraqi parliament remain deadlocked over a law regarding the Iranian-backed groups with political division.
MS BRUCE: Now, I’m sorry, when you look down it’s interesting. I know you all have microphones in front of you. I can’t hear you. So can you just repeat that again so I can answer you properly?
QUESTION: Yeah, of course. Yeah, my question is about the Iranian-backed groups —
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: — in Iraq.
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: And the PMF.
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: The Iraqi parliament remains deadlocked over a law regarding the Iranian-backed groups with political division, and the Washington Institute here in D.C. arguing that the law is less about genuine reform, but it’s more about securing their role and their political and financial advantage for the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq. My question is that how this administration assess the role of the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq.
And the second question, there were reports circulating that this administration, including State Department, has requested the Iraqi Government to dissolve the militia groups and the PMF. Have you made such a request?
MS BRUCE: I can tell you a few things here. First, to strengthen Iraq’s sovereignty, the Government of Iraq must ensure it has command and control of all security forces within its borders, to include the PMF. These forces must respond to Iraq’s commander-in-chief and not to Iran.
We are also concerned that these Iran-aligned groups within the PMF, including designated foreign terrorist organizations, engage in violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq. We continue to urge the Iraqi Government to rein in these groups and hold them accountable for breaking Iraqi law. The President has no higher priority than the safety of U.S. personnel, and he has made it clear that the United States will defend itself, its personnel, and its interests.
So I hope that answers your question.
QUESTION: Follow-up on Iraq?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS BRUCE: Yes. Said, please. You’ve been —
QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy.
MS BRUCE: Yes, of course.
QUESTION: Very quickly, I have a couple questions, one on Gaza.
MS BRUCE: I am not surprised.
QUESTION: One on – thank you. One on Gaza and one on the West Bank.
On Gaza, I want to ask you about the humanitarian situation. It’s been determined that over 97 percent of Gaza’s underground water is unfit for human consumption, and it’s being held. Are there any – aside from possibly talks for a ceasefire, another ceasefire and so on, are there any talks that you’re aware of to get the humanitarian aid going, especially the water going?
And second, I want to ask you on the West Bank, but I’ll wait until you answer this.
MS BRUCE: Well, I mean, this is why we want – and we’re very disturbed when Hamas did not perform to make sure that the ceasefire could continue, that they did not do what they said they would do. So we know, of course, when it comes to the ground water, of course, this is – it’s a crisis. It’s exacerbated by the fact that you have a terrorist group that just doesn’t care. When you think about the nature – we’re concerned about ground water. We know wherever you are and whoever you are about what makes life possible. And yet you are dealing with an entity controlling and had controlled that area that not only is not caring about the nature of quality of life, they’re – they don’t care about life at all. Their reason for being is to use human beings as human shields and to murder and to rape, to just create a kind of suffering that is unimaginable for civilized human beings.
So of course we care about this. This is why this administration has been determined and has been focused on changing that environment so it doesn’t repeat for every generation. There is a certain point where all of us in this room will be gone from this planet, and your children or the people you know and your grandchildren will be sitting in these chairs. If we can, as our generations, can try to please – there’ll always be problems, but with what we’ve learned over the last several centuries, certainly the last century and the beginning of this one, is that it cannot continue. So that they can have other conversations and maybe even better ones, but that has got to be what we focus on.
And I think that it’s – I don’t want to – just to say it’s not a given, but every time I see you, Said, you ask me questions and I answer you in a similar way. And I believe – I like you. You’ve gotten to know me a tiny bit – is that I am serious when I say these things to you and say them to you from my experience working in this building with the people who have devoted their lives to dealing with these issues, people – I’ve mentioned the career people before, the bureaus that are in this building that work on the issues in the regions, certainly the people who are voted in by the American people. And it is every day – maybe I – I don’t know what happened before in the last 50 years that makes it still an issue now. We are serious – beyond serious – that it’s going to end.
So I’m going to – I’m going to leave from there, because I do – through the day – rest of the day and through this briefing, I end up answering, I think, many of your questions.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS BRUCE: And we’re going to continue on.
All right, now you, for waiting patiently. Thank you, sir.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Thanks, Tammy. Yeah, since this is my first briefing with you, Leon Bruneau, AFP.
MS BRUCE: Excellent. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
QUESTION: That way everyone is aware.
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: I have two unrelated questions, if you —
MS BRUCE: No. No way. Unrelated? All right.
QUESTION: Unrelated, yeah. The first is I’d like to go back to an issue which I think is important, which is USAID and humanitarian aid in general. I know you’ve been asked about this and you’ve said that the administration wanted to go after waste and fraud and what have you.
MS BRUCE: Of course. Well, they wanted to and they did.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: There’s been many, many dire warnings – today from UNAIDS agency, last week from the UNICEF, the children agency, but also last week from the UNHCR, the refugee agency. Basically, the bottom line is, okay, you cut funding, you did this, and you did that, but it’s having and will have a major impact because it’s disrupted many, many programs, especially from the UN and all that. So – and by dismantling USAID, who are experienced in delivering aid and there were thousands of people doing it. Who is actually doing now the control, coordination, and distribution of whatever aid is left at State Department? Are you equipped for that?
And second, I mean, related to this is: What is your general comment as to these very dire warnings from very serious people about the millions of children or people who are going to suffer?
MS BRUCE: Yes.
QUESTION: And then an unrelated question after.
MS BRUCE: All right, thank God, because I was going to – want to answer this one certainly first. And I know you haven’t been here because we have been talking about this a lot. So I’m going to say something that everyone has heard in one fashion or another, which is a reminder that just because a structure has changed or stopped does not mean that the nature of our work in that issue has stopped; that because a certain building might be named something else or a certain program has ended or that a certain department is over or made smaller does not mean that that’s the reflection of our commitment to foreign aid or to helping the world. That is pretty much what America has done from the start, and we continue to do, because it matters. But it will only work when we understand whether or not it is working to accomplish the thing that the people running it say it would accomplish, if the money that is spent is actually – again, according to Samantha Power on her way out as the lead of USAID last year said 7 to 10 percent of the money afforded to programs through her entity is – only gets to the people that need it, making a person wonder – and this isn’t a new debate – of where does the other 90 percent go.
So it is the height of irresponsibility to give people hope with spending billions of dollars, and it’s not even reaching the people that you’ve told that it is supposed to go to. It’s – they don’t see it. And you don’t see the world getting better, do you? You see different things going on, but the – our expense of foreign aid increases, and you’d think if the foreign aid process was to work, the need for foreign aid would decrease. But it doesn’t. It gets bigger and bigger and bigger. The Secretary has called it a foreign aid industrial complex, I think. And there is so much money that what has happened now is in fact a reform of this framework to make sure that if we’re going to spend, as we have and will likely do in some fashion, billions of dollars to help the world, damn it, those billions of dollars better help the world. That is the basic standard.
So there is disruption. We understand that. But it doesn’t mean everything has come to a halt. It doesn’t mean it ever did or that it will in the future. Our commitment to foreign aid remains. And just because how it used to look – what is before is gone – it means that it’s going to just look differently, and it will be more efficient, and the waste, abuse, and fraud which in the beginning of your question you said in a little bit of a snarky manner – I sometimes am snarky as well —
QUESTION: Never.
MS BRUCE: — that that was, like, what was said is that we wanted to deal with. Why else – I can say this for this administration, I think, for this State Department. Why else are we here? For us, it’s to fix this thing. It’s to make it really work. It’s to make it work for people and to fulfill the promise of what we’re supposed to be able to do, and not just have the façade because of a building or because of giant grants and money.
So it is – it’s disruptive. We – again, it’s foreign aid is not going to stop, not by any means.
QUESTION: What —
MS BRUCE: And the form in which it takes and what we expect for it to align with what’s important to the United States – it is the taxpayer dollars. What’s important to us has made us the best country in the world and wants – and everybody wants to come here – and that we’re able to help the world, because that’s what this nation is, and that’s going to continue. But it wouldn’t be able to continue if this nation did not look seriously at where the money was going and the amount of waste and fraud that has existed. And that’s —
QUESTION: But there were thousands of people who were dealing with this.
MS BRUCE: I —
QUESTION: Who is actually dealing with it at the State Department? Do you have the manpower to do it?
MS BRUCE: All right. There is – State Department, the United States Government, it is. It’s a very big entity. And there are people, not just – I talk about this with the ceasefires and the negotiations and foreign aid and everything else. Because you don’t see it and it’s not in front of you doesn’t mean it’s not happening. It is an operation around the world that is the biggest in —
QUESTION: Tammy?
MS BRUCE: — humankind. So I’m going to move on from that because – coming now to each of the briefings would be good because you would have heard these answers beforehand.
QUESTION: I – no, I don’t agree with you.
MS BRUCE: Yes, Andrea. Let’s get to some people in the back who have had their hands up.
QUESTION: Tammy, will —
MS BRUCE: Glasses on, please.
Yes, sir, go ahead.
QUESTION: Can I just – can I just follow up on this?
QUESTION: I have a question, back to the West Bank. I’m wondering if you’ve seen reports that the director or co-director of the Oscar-winning film No Other Land was just beaten by settlers and taken from the amb
No comments:
Post a Comment