Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

White House Press Briefing. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired August 27, 2021 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[14:00:00]

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: And we've been putting those numbers out to all of you twice a day, so that you can see how that -- how we are evacuating people out of the country.

Those numbers will go down in the next couple of days. And you should anticipate that. That is as a result of the retrograde process that needs to take place, but also I will note that, of course, force protection is front and center and is vital to the mission.

QUESTION: One more.

President Biden told reporters in the Oval Office during his meeting with the prime minister that he talked to Dr. Fauci today about the prospect of getting booster shots after five months, instead of eight.

Can you explain why he's looking at that, what information he has now that justifies the possibility of doing that correction?

PSAKI: Well, let me be very clear.

The president would rely on any guidance by the CDC and the FDA and his health and medical experts. That guidance continues to be eight months. That has not changed. So I want to be very clear on that. If they were to change their guidance, based on data, for any particular group, he would, of course, abide by that.

But for people watching at home, for you all who are reporting out this, nothing has changed about the eight-month timeline as it relates to the boosters.

QUESTION: Why did they go -- why is this conversation even happening sort of trigger from eight to five?

PSAKI: Well, I would say I can't -- I obviously wasn't in -- sitting in the meeting, having the discussion with them on this.

But as Israel has taken the step of doing six-month boosters, and it's -- the president referenced advice he'd been given from the prime minister, obviously, we make our own assessments, based on our health and medical experts here in the United States, and nothing has changed on that front.

So I think it was more likely a reference to that. And, obviously, we have ongoing discussions with our health and medical experts about what they look at.

Go ahead (INAUDIBLE)

QUESTION: Two on Afghanistan.

First, I just wanted to get an update on the president's plans, if he has any, to meet the troops when their remains are returned to the United States .

PSAKI: Well, there hasn't been an announcement, as you know, by the U.S. military about the timing of that. But I can reiterate what I conveyed yesterday, which is the president will look for any opportunity to honor the service men and women who lost their lives yesterday. But I don't have anything to announce at this point in time.

QUESTION: OK, and then just one other thing.

There's been some reporting around the Taliban requesting a diplomatic, an ongoing diplomatic presence in Kabul from the United States.

Could you talk a little bit about what the thinking is here at the White House about whether that's appropriate and how or if that would happen after the end of August?

PSAKI: Well, I would say first that we are looking at ways -- and I will refer to our secretary of state and the State Department here -- to continue to engage.

I will note something I said. I know this wasn't exactly your question, but just to get it in here, that the president did direct the secretary of state to continue diplomatic efforts with international partners to secure means for third country nationals and Afghans with visas to leave the country even after the U.S. military presence ends.

A part of that would certainly be having a coordinated approach and engagement with the Taliban, because, in order to continue to evacuate any American citizen who was not yet prepared to leave, who wants to leave, third country nationals and Afghans with visas, we will need to coordinate with the Taliban.

That does not mean or translate into a presence on the ground. As we have noted, we are pulling our presence out by the 31st. And that has not changed.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Menendez put out a statement that said, in part, we can't trust the Taliban with American security in terms of -- in the wake of the attack yesterday.

I don't want to get into a semantic debate about the word trust. But I guess my question is, is the coordination with the Taliban the best of bad options right now, or is it the view from the military and the White House that it was the only option given the dynamics on the ground?

PSAKI: Maybe both.

And I will say, I know -- I won't get into a semantic debate, but I think it's worth repeating as often as I can that we don't trust the Taliban. This is not about trust. But there is a reality on the ground. And the reality is, the Afghan -- the Taliban control large swathes of Afghanistan, including the area surrounding the perimeter of the airport.

So, by necessity, that is our option to coordinate with to get American citizens out, to get our Afghan partners out, to get individuals who are eligible for the range of programs the United States has out. And we have now evacuated more than 105,000 people as a result of those coordinated -- in large part as a result of those coordinated efforts of getting people out.

But I will say that, as the Department of Defense noted earlier today, clearly, something went wrong here on the process that we saw the ISIS-K attack occur yesterday. We don't have additional information to suggest that it was intentional or anything along those lines, which was a question that was asked yesterday.

But, clearly, there was a break in the security process here. There's no question about that.

QUESTION: And just one (OFF-MIKE) asked.

(OFF-MIKE) Israeli and U.S. officials be this definitive about the security threats that are being faced anywhere in the world, but this has always been something the president has pointed to as to why he wanted to stick to the August 31 deadline.

[14:05:10]

Is there a tangible difference in what you guys are seeing or have seen over the course of the last several days that makes this moment different than what the president was citing a week ago, over 10 days ago?

PSAKI: Well, like, I can't always -- I know you're not asking me to, but I can't clearly get into specific details from here.

But what I think the -- the reason we put this out publicly in the way we did is because yesterday there was an attack by terrorists that killed 13 members of the U.S. military. And it's important for us, as the federal -- as the government, to be clear about what threat our U.S. forces are facing on the ground as they continue to implement the mission.

And that threat is acute, it is ongoing. Our troops are still in danger. And they are taking the steps they are taking to save lives and evacuate people because of their commitment to the mission. And we felt it was important for people to understand that.

Go ahead. QUESTION: Thanks, Jen.

I also wanted to ask you about the statement you put out. You said that, in light of yesterday's attack, the troops there are taking maximum force protection measures at Kabul Airport.

What resources are available to them that they didn't have yesterday? They have the same number of troops and the same amount of equipment.

PSAKI: Any resources that they need and they request from the president, they will be granted.

But I'm not going to get into additional details.

QUESTION: OK.

And then I'm also wondering if the president has any plans to speak to the families of the fallen service members?

PSAKI: Yes, so how this process works is, the next of kin notifications would, of course, happen by the Department of Defense, typically in person to next of kin. I believe they gave an update on that this morning, conveyed that that process is ongoing.

The president wouldn't then make a call or reach out until that process is completed. And it would be up to the next of kin and the families to determine if they are prepared to receive a call from the president of the United States.

And I think it's important to note that this may be the worst day of their lives. And they may or may not feel they're ready to talk to the United States or they want to talk to the president of the United States. And that's their choice.

But I expect, once any calls are completed, we will provide you all an update.

QUESTION: Great.

And then, finally, I want to know if the White House has any reaction to the swathe of Republican lawmakers who are now calling on the president to resign over this?

PSAKI: Well, Nancy, I have to say that seeing some of this occur or be called for or be put out on Twitter, the backdrop here is, the U.S. men and women of the military deployed on the ground are bravely continuing to implement a mission to save lives on the ground, American citizens, Afghan partners, many people that some of these same individuals are calling for us to evacuate.

Yesterday, they lost 13 of their own. And the president made absolutely clear that we're going to hunt down, go after and kill the terrorists who are responsible. Everyone should be supportive of that.

QUESTION: So, you think now is not the time for politics?

PSAKI: Correct.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jen.

When the president says we will hunt you down and make you pay, what does that look like? Is he going to order a mission to kill the people responsible? Or would he be satisfied if they are captured and brought to trial?

PSAKI: I think he made clear yesterday that he does not want them to live on the earth anymore.

QUESTION: OK.

And as the U.S. is coordinating with the Taliban about security for the next couple days, some of the people running security for the Taliban in Kabul are terrorists with millions of dollars worth of bounties on their heads.

Are we going to try to bring those known terrorists to justice before we leave the country?

PSAKI: Peter, I think our focus right now is on doing everything we can to get the remaining American citizens who want to depart out of the country, to get our Afghan partners out of the country.

As I just said in response to Phil's question, this is not a preferred relationship or a situation that we would have designed if we had started from scratch. I think that's very clear.

But right now, we need to continue to coordinate. That's our focus for the next couple of days.

QUESTION: And the last one.

You said that you think we're going to have a great deal of leverage over the Taliban after we leave. You think we're going to have more leverage with no troops on the ground in Afghanistan than we do with thousands of troops on the ground in Afghanistan?

PSAKI: Well, to be clear, one of the steps that the president directed as secretary of state to take, which was in my statement this morning, was to engage with our international partners to determine what the path forward looks like.

And there are key components here. The Taliban are going to want a functioning airport. So do we. There's an enormous amount of economic leverage that the global community has. That's something we need to work with our international partners on. As we have more to update you on, we will update you on it.

QUESTION: In terms of the president's commitment to make those who are responsible for yesterday's attack pay, is the president committed that, even after American troops leave Afghanistan, he would be willing to send in American troops, even in some covert form, to complete that mission to kill those who are responsible?

[14:10:02]

PSAKI: I'm not going to get into details from here on what going -- hunting and going after the terrorists who killed 13 service members will entail or detail.

And I don't think the Department of Defense will either. But that will -- that commitment will remain until it's done.

QUESTION: Suffice to say, it means the potential exists for troops to go back into Afghanistan, even after the 31st?

PSAKI: Again, I'm not going to get into the detail of what that would require.

But his commitment remains until it's done.

QUESTION: Understood.

In terms of that commitment, just so it's clear for Americans right now, just four-plus days away from the August 31 deadline, is the White House's commitment still at this point that all Americans who want to leave Afghanistan will be able to leave before that date?

PSAKI: That is what we're focused on, committed to and working toward.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Back on the diplomatic efforts, it's Friday. The deadline is Tuesday. What more can you tell us about these talks the president has directed the secretary of state to undertake?

How close is an agreement? Will we have a diplomatic presence in Afghanistan on September 1?

PSAKI: That's not what we're predicting, nor are we predicting we're going to have a -- we're not predicting a diplomatic presence on the ground in Afghanistan.

We are -- what we're talking about is coordinating with our international partners in order to determine what the path forward looks like, so we can continue to evacuate third country nationals, Afghans with visas, and any American citizens who have not yet departed because they're not prepared to depart after that period of time.

And that will require coordination with our international partners. It will also require continued engagement in some capacity with the Taliban.

QUESTION: Just to be clear, are you suggesting there will not be in American diplomatic presence in Afghanistan...

(CROSSTALK) PSAKI: I think we have been clear we're pulling our personnel out by

the 31st. I don't think we have made any other assessment.

I'll let the State Department speak to any other plans beyond that.

QUESTION: If I could ask you one more question, I think you indicated yesterday that you believe the president has all the legal authority he needs to attack ISIS-K.

PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Is it the White House's view that the president can lean on the AUMF that was passed right after 9/11 to do so?

PSAKI: I can just assure you the president and the military feel they have all the authorities they need to attack ISIS-K.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: To follow up on Steve's question, the G20, some members of the G20 are pushing for a special meeting on Afghanistan (OFF-MIKE)

Is there a discussion yet of having a date for a special G20 meeting on Afghanistan?

PSAKI: It's a great question. It would really happen, be coordinated through the State Department, Jennifer. So, I would refer you to them. I expect they will have more details on their planned engagements with international partners in the coming days.

QUESTION: And then the president in the Oval Office talked about how, if diplomacy fails with Iran, he would be willing to look at other options.

Can you share a little bit more about what other options might mean?

PSAKI: Well, any president always maintains a range of options.

But I would tell you that our objective and our first priority and focus is on a diplomatic path forward. That's what we're putting our energies at this point in time.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: I know that there have been a lot of questions about this, but I just really want to try to get some clarity around, after August 31, for people who will still be on the ground in Afghanistan and want to get out, is -- does the U.S. right now have a vision of a process that they will use to get people out after August 31?

Like, and what is the commitment after August 31? Is it absolute? If you want to get out of Afghanistan and you are -- that you -- and you helped the U.S. military, you're an Afghan, you will be able to get out? If you're a green card holder or someone else who wants to get, will you -- is the U.S. guaranteeing that you will be able to get out?

PSAKI: I don't think we can guarantee.

But what we can do is work toward -- and this is what the president directed the secretary of state to continue diplomatic efforts with international partners to secure means for third country nationals, Afghans with visas who may be eligible for our programs, of course, any American citizen who remains in country threat, to leave the country even after the U.S. military presence ends.

There's a means of mechanisms for that. Those conversations are ongoing. That's our objective. Our commitment does not change on October -- on August 31. Obviously, we need to figure out the operational mechanisms, which is the conversation that's under way.

QUESTION: I have a question about green card holders in Afghanistan, U.S. green card holders.

PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Are they being prioritized right now? Or is it only U.S. citizens? Are green card holders not being prioritized at this point?

PSAKI: Again, I think you can note from the numbers, even if you look at the last 24 hours, and we got more than 10,000 -- I think it was actually a little bit higher than that -- people out. Just over 300 of them were American citizens -- passport holders, I should say.

Obviously, the rest of the people were Afghans, were green card holders, were others. So they are still getting out of the country, yes.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: The administration, your -- the Biden administration is filled with people who've had a long experience with Afghanistan, many of them dating back years, if not decades.

PSAKI: Including the president.

QUESTION: Including the president.

Most of that time, the Taliban was the sworn enemy. I mean, it was the enemy against whom we fought.

[14:15:02]

Is there a recognition inside the administration of the irony, sort of grim irony of having to -- being in a position to rely upon and coordinate with and have negotiations with an adversary that they fought, that many of them fought for two decades?

PSAKI: I think irony is far too light of a term.

I mean, our -- the reality is here, as kind of to Phil's earlier question, this is the circumstance we're faced with. The Taliban control large swathes of the country. That is not what anyone anticipated at this point in time. In order to get American citizens out, in order to get our Afghan partners out, in order to get green card holders out, we need to coordinate with the Taliban. We have been able to evacuate more than 105,000 people as a result.

This is not the only place in the world where we work -- we have to work with adversaries or people who have been enemies at times in order to further U.S. national security objectives. That's a part of what you have to be flexible to do when you're running the United States or when national security teams are looking to achieve our objectives around the world.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) a little bit more of the emotional side of it.

Do you sense from inside the administration in the meetings that you're in a kind of resignation or a frustration or whatever you want to call it with the sort of situation that they find themselves in, in that regard?

PSAKI: No, OK, I understand your question.

I would say, having sat in a lot of these meetings, there's just not a lot of time for self-reflection right now. The focus is really on the task at hand. And as -- even as we're talking about these threats that are acute and ongoing and increasing, we're focused on that and what the information is that's incoming, what steps we can take to get more people out over the coming days or the remaining days.

So I wouldn't say there's a lot of focus on self-reflection at this point in time.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, thanks, Jen.

What is the White House's reaction to the Supreme Court yesterday overturning the CDC's targeted evictions moratorium. Does it now -- does the White House now want Congress to act to issue a new moratorium?

And what is the White House doing to address what could now become a real eviction crisis for many renters (OFF-MIKE)

PSAKI: Sure.

Well, first, President Biden would, of course, support congressional action to authorize an eviction moratorium. And the Supreme Court has now clearly outlined that as the sole way a moratorium could remain in effect.

Now, at the same time, I think it's important to remember what our objective is here. Our objective is to keep as many people around the country in their homes as possible. Federal legislation is one way to do that. Obviously, the eviction moratorium we have had in place and we have been issuing month to month is one way to do that. But the ERA funding that came through the American Rescue Plan and is

going out to states is another way to do that. And we have asked and we have put out today -- the Department of Treasury and the secretary of HUD sent a letter calling on all governors, mayors, county officials to put in place their own moratoria.

There are seven states across the country who have done that. It has the same impact, right, because it is preventing people from being kicked out of their homes, and these states have the funding, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, to get that done.

Now, the other place that's our responsibility that we continue to focus on is working to eliminate any red tape that exists. We made some announcements earlier this week that allows renters to attest to their economic circumstances to make it easier.

That is -- we have seen an impact in some states. But we're going to continue to look for ways to ease the burden and make it easier to get access to this funding.

QUESTION: You said that Biden would support another moratorium. But does he -- is he going to actively urge Congress to take up a vote and pass one, to issue one?

PSAKI: He has conveyed that.

But I think it's really important, just to go back, not to beat a dead horse here, but to not miss the forest through the trees here, which is, what we're trying to do here is prevent people from being evicted from their homes. If there were enough votes to pass an eviction moratorium in Congress, it would have happened. It hasn't happened, right?

So what we're looking at now is how to achieve the objective that we all share, which is to -- not everyone, I should say, but a lot of the people who are calling for an extension this, which is to keep people in their homes.

There is means to do that in these states. Seven states have taken the steps. More states can take the steps. They have the funding they need.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Jen.

We have heard reports that refugees from Afghanistan have been landing at Dulles Airport, and they have to sit on airplanes for hours at a time, sometimes with no or limited access to food.

Is this somebody the White House is aware of? And are you making any efforts to smooth this out? I know you said DHS has sort of taken the lead on relocating Afghans. But what does the White House think about these conditions right now and what are you all doing about them?

PSAKI: Well, certainly, we are always working to improve the conditions for people who are coming to the country.

But I think the important context here is why that is. And that is because our security vetting process is so thorough that, even as people are vetted before they come, they go through a background check before they come, we implement multiple layers of checks, including a confirmation, in some cases on landing.

[14:20:04]

And that is to check the manifests. And, in a limited number of cases, we have been -- we have vetting processes that may be unresolved, very limited. But that may lead to -- on -- at times a delay in individuals being held on the plane, so that we can have that process seen through.

Now, of course, ensuring that people are treated humanely as they are coming to the United States, they have access to food and to water is something we are committed to. And we will continue to improve any of these conditions.

But I think the reason why these planes are waiting is also an important part of the context here as well.

QUESTION: And just to follow up on one thing, I know, earlier, you addressed some of the Republican criticism of the president.

But what is your message, what is the White House's message to Democrats who have expressed substantive concerns about the withdrawal from Afghanistan? Do you have any message to them or response to some of their criticism?

PSAKI: Is there a specific piece?

QUESTION: I mean, Congresswoman Susan Wild, for example, has said that: "It's clear to me that we could not continue to put American service members in danger for an unwinnable war, but I also believe that the evacuation process appears to have been egregiously mishandled."

So what's your response to something like that?

PSAKI: Look, I don't have any direct response to any member of Congress.

But I will -- what I will say is that it is easy to throw stones or be a critic from the outside. It is harder to be in the arena and make difficult decisions. And the decisions that a commander in chief has to make include among difficult options, right?

These were the options. You send tens of thousands of more troops in Afghanistan to potentially lose their lives. That's an option. Some have called -- some support that. That's their prerogative. You pull out and you don't put anyone at risk, you don't put troops at risk, and you don't evacuate more than 105,000 people, that's another option. The option that he has chosen, in coordination and based on the

recommendations with his military commanders and advisers on the ground, is to implement an evacuation that has saved the lives potentially of more than 105,000 people, certainly at risk of the men and women who are serving in the military, as we saw by the events of yesterday.

That's the choice he's made.

QUESTION: Jen, apologies to my colleague -- my colleagues, but, like, you guys have said repeatedly (OFF-MIKE) this idea that there were only two choices.

What evidence do you have that there weren't other choices that could have been made? I mean...

PSAKI: What was the other -- what is the other choice anyone is offering?

QUESTION: For example, the president could have said to the Ghani government in May, look, we're going to start a mass evacuation of all of the U.S. personnel. We're going to put out an announcement that says, we advise all of our Afghan allies who work with us to start evacuating as well.

It would have been a show of no confidence in the Ghani government. There might have been other repercussions. I'm not suggesting that's the right way to have gone. I don't know. But it is another option. And I'm sure there's 10 other options that I haven't thought of that -- so why do you present it as these being the only two options?

PSAKI: There are, of course, other options, but there are consequences to every option. That is my point.

So let's take your example. If we had evacuated and moved in C-17s, 6,000 troops, I think that's what you're suggesting, and implemented this evacuation in May, you know what have happened, in all likelihood? The threat on U.S. forces would have increased at that point in time.

ISIS-K...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) But you would have been operating in a capital that wasn't over overrun by the Taliban.

PSAKI: How do you know that?

QUESTION: Well, the Taliban wasn't near Kabul at that point.

PSAKI: Look, Mike, I think it's easy to play backseat let's look at what could have happened three months, four months ago. I think we have been clear on a couple of things, I will just say.

No one anticipated, I think including on the outside, that the Afghan government would have fallen at the pace they fell. And the president and members of our national security team have spoken to that as well. We didn't anticipate the Afghan national security forces would have folded as they did. We didn't anticipate that.

And as a result of that all happening, we saw a chaotic situation just two weeks ago. So you can always -- my point in the response to the question is that there are consequences to any of these difficult choices and decisions. That's the -- that's the -- that is what faces you as commander in chief, and that was the larger point I was trying to make.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jen.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Can you tell us anything about the 13 service members who were killed yesterday, like gender, age? Is there anything you can give us without compromising...

(CROSSTALK)

PSAKI: I wouldn't be in a position to share details about individuals. That would come from the Department of Defense.

And, as I noted, the next of kin notifications are still happening.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: On Wednesday...

PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) said the scientific evidence on recommending booster shots remains inconclusive. And the WHO is still trying to see to look at safety.

[14:25:02]

And we know that President Biden and the first lady will soon take their first shot in -- their booster shot in a few weeks. Are you concerned that the president will take a booster shot that is not scientifically -- that has no scientific...

(CROSSTALK)

PSAKI: No, it was approved by our FDA and recommended here in the United States, and that's the gold standard of this type of data review.

Go ahead

QUESTION: In the last 24 hours, we understand that approximately 12,000 people have been evacuated out of Afghanistan.

PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: We know that, for security reasons, you can't get specific on what security plans are in place.

But, generally speaking, can you say if any of the protocols or plans on the ground have changed to enable these evacuations safely, despite the threats that are currently there?

PSAKI: Sure. I understand your question.

And, certainly, they adjust and make adjustments on the ground. The commanders on the ground do in order to keep their troops safe, in order to successfully evacuate more people from the country.

And I -- as you noted, we're obviously not going to get into those details from here. It's also important to note and just reiterate, as I said earlier, that you will see a reduction in numbers over the next couple of days. And that is because they are beginning the retrograde process over the course the next couple of days.

They will also be mindful of true posture and keeping the men and women of our military safe, to the degree they can.

QUESTION: Over the last few days, we have seen images of service members kind of creating this human chain, this human barrier, holding people back in Kabul.

Do you know if that is still happening? That seems like it's putting them in a very vulnerable spot.

PSAKI: The service members -- sorry, just so I understand.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Kabul, just images of them kind of blocking groups from getting to a certain area. Is -- do you know if that is still happening, or is that one of the changes that's been implemented?

PSAKI: I can't -- I would point you to the Department of Defense for any operational changes they can speak to. And I would predict they're not going to speak to many in detail.

What I will note and refer to is something General McKenzie said yesterday which really stuck with me in terms of illustrating what's happening here. In order to do the security screenings necessary, people have to get quite close. The members of the military have to get quite close to individuals they're screening.

They have screened, as we know, tens of thousands of people. So, some images may reflect that. I think what you're talking about is something different from that. But I would certainly point you to them for any specifics they can provide.

(CROSSTALK)

PSAKI: Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... on the fake vaccine cards that are making the rounds. The Health and Human Services office of I.G. told us this morning that they are receiving -- quote -- "increasing reports of individuals creating, purchasing, using fake COVID cards," COVID vaccine cards.

How concerned is the White House that this could threaten the nation's progress against the virus?

PSAKI: I would not state that as our level of concern.

Of course we are concerned about fake vaccine carts. I don't have an assessment of how widespread it is. I'd have to check with the team and get an assessment of that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jen. Thank you.

I have two questions about the president's commitment to give it to us straight, as he often says. The Democratic congressman Seth Moulton told journalist Hunter Walker, a former White House colleague -- quote -- "Even if you completely agree with the Biden administration's decision to withdraw, the way they have handled this has been a total F-U-C-K-I-N-G disaster."

President Biden firmly committed last night to evacuate any remaining Americans. But you seemed to say just now, I don't think we can guarantee that. So, which is it?

PSAKI: I think the question was actually about individuals who are still there because they don't -- they're not prepared to leave, or other Afghans, or others who may want to depart, just for clarity. I know you care about context.

QUESTION: So, there is a commitment to evacuate all Americans?

And, if so, does that mean there's some sort of deal with the Taliban?

PSAKI: I don't even understand what your question is.

QUESTION: The question is that there -- the airport evacuation obviously was disorganized. It was criticized even by Democratic congressmen.

Is there actually a plan behind President Biden's commitment to evacuating remaining Americans?

PSAKI: I think the fact that we have evacuated more than 105,000 people, including -- and I can give you all the latest numbers, which I know the State Department is giving or is about to give.

So, of those evacuated since August 14, we have evacuated at least 5, 100 U.S. citizens, likely more. We have received confirmation within the last day more than 300 additional Americans were evacuated. Based on our outreach, there are approximately 500 American citizens we are currently working with who want to leave.

And we're communicating directly and in direct contact with them. That speaks to our commitment, I think.

QUESTION: My second question...

PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: And my second question (OFF-MIKE) the topic is, yesterday, the conservative transparency group Judicial Watch released Secret Service records on dog bites involving the first dog Major.

One e-mail said that Secret Service agents were bitten every single day for eight days from March 1 to March 8 and that a White House visitor was as well. At a March 9 briefing, you only described one biting incident to us and described the dogs as being whisked back to Delaware on a preplanned trip to family friends.