Subject: Fwd: Immigration Enforcement Actions
From: Luis Miranda <[email-masked]>
To: "Miranda, Luis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 11:32:12 -0700

FYI on how the White House has answered questions regarding DHS's
enforcement actions.

Q    One other area.  There are these reports about immigration raids that
are supposedly happening during May.  You've heard even Secretary Clinton
and Senator Sanders comment on this.  There's the belief that the
administration is going to conduct huge raids during May and June, rallying
up significant numbers of women and children, recent people who have
crossed the country in significant numbers.  Is that true?  Is there
something different happening now?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, this is an excellent question.  We're talking about a
DHS enforcement action, so there are some limitations about what I can say,
but let me help you understand exactly the policy that DHS is
implementing.  And I think I can largely answer your question.

The first is -- and this is something that Secretary Johnson himself has
said -- that the operations that are underway are merely the continuation
of operations that were announced in January and in March.  And those
operations are conducted under the rubric of the guidance that President
Obama and Secretary Johnson put in place in November of 2014.  And that is
guidance that made a priority of individuals who are convicted criminals or
otherwise a threat to public safety, or individuals who were apprehended
after crossing the border after January 1st of 2014.

So we've made clear that our priorities are people who pose a threat to the
community, people who are convicted criminals, or people who have only
recently crossed the border.  So those priorities remain in place, and
those priorities are followed even as these operations continue.

Let me say two more things.  The first is, no one is removed if they have
an ongoing, pending claim or appeal for asylum or some other form of
humanitarian relief.  People are given access to due process.  And that is
a foundational principle for all of this.  So the only people who are the
targets of these operations are people who are subject to an order by an
immigration court for removal and people who have also, in addition to
being subject to that order, have exhausted any potential claims that they
have for humanitarian relief.

The last thing is DHS enforcement agents also follow what I understand is
to be longstanding guidance that ensures that these operations are not
conducted in sensitive places.  These operations are not conducted in
schools or hospitals or places of worship, for example.

Q    So is there no reason to fear that the numbers of deportations aren't
going to increase or spike -- whatever words you want to use now -- because
there's something, a specific operation underway that's different from
what's normally happening there along the border?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, what Secretary Johnson has described is that the
operations that are underway now are a continuation of operations that were
previously announced.

But look, I think we would anticipate that the deportation numbers would
continue to go up.  This administration is serious about enforcing the
law.  And I recognize that our political opponents don't like to
acknowledge that fact.  But we've made clear how we're going to use law
enforcement resources to enhance our border security and to enhance the
security of communities across the country.  Most importantly, we're going
to enforce our laws.

And this is something that President Obama is committed to.  And the truth
is, we would have a whole lot more resources to do exactly that if
Republicans in the House of Representatives had not blocked comprehensive
immigration reform legislation that did include an historic investment in
our border security.  But we do not enjoy the benefits of that border
security today because House Republicans blocked the passage of that
legislation.

Q    And just lastly, it's not your political opponents -- well, some of
the people who are objecting to this or raising concerns about this are
Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders, who I wouldn't think you'd consider
political opponents.

MR. EARNEST:  No, but it's our political opponents who suggest that
President Obama is not interested in enforcing the law.  And I think that
is demonstrably false.  That's the point that I'm making.  That's the
reason that we're having this conversation right now.

-----Original Message-----
From: White House Press Office [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:57 PM
To: Rodriguez, Julie C. EOP/WHO <[email-masked]>
Subject: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 5/13/2016

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release                               May 13, 2016

PRESS BRIEFING

BY PRESS SECRETARY JOSH EARNEST

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:24 P.M. EDT

     MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Happy Friday.  Glad it's
finally here.  I do not have any announcements to begin, so we can go
straight to your questions.

Kathleen, would you like to start?

Q    Sure.  Thank you.  I'm going to start with the administration's letter
on transgender bathroom guidance for schools.

MR. EARNEST:  I thought you might.

Q    I thought I'd give you a chance to respond to Texas's - the lieutenant
governor, Dan Patrick, who said that the letter -- he called the letter
"blackmail," and said that the administration is doing everything it can to
-- or he said it's going to divide the country and it has everything to do
with keeping the federal government out of local issues.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think this does underscore the risk of electing a
right-wing radio host to a statewide elected office.  So let's just walk
through the facts here.  The first is, this was guidance that was issued by
the Department of Education and the Department of Justice in response to
requests for information and guidance from school administrators across the
country.

Just last week, for example, the National Association of Secondary School
Principals put forward a specific formal request to the Department of
Education about how to create the kind of respectful, inclusive environment
that school administrators across the country are seeking to maintain.
These principals also are interested in making sure that they're acting
consistent with the law.  And they sought guidance because they're not
interested in a political argument, they're actually interested in
practical suggestions about how they confront this challenge that they face
every day.

So let's just be clear about what's included in the guidance.  The guidance
does not add additional requirements to the applicable law.  The guidance
does not require any student to use shared facilities when schools make
alternate arrangements.  But what the framework does provide is advice for
how school administrators can protect the dignity and safety of every
student under their charge.  And that advice includes practical, tangible,
real-world suggestions to school administrators who have to deal with this
issue.  They can't rely on political arguments that are framed as a
solution to a problem that nobody can prove exists.  They actually have to
deal with the responsibility that they have to promote an inclusive,
respectful environment for all of their students.

And what the Department of Education has issued today is specific,
tangible, real-world advice and suggestions to school administrators across
the country about exactly they can do that.

Q    But you wouldn't argue -- or it seems as though the administration is
also trying to paint this as a major civil rights issue, right?  This isn't
just a pragmatic sort of everyday guidance to schools.  Attorney General
Lynch has compared this to racial segregation.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think Attorney General Lynch was talking about a very
specific enforcement action that the Department of Education announced --
or the Department of Justice announced with regard to a specific law that
was passed by the state of North Carolina.  In this instance, this is not
an enforcement action.  As I pointed out, this does not add any additional
requirements to any school district or state under the applicable law.
This is in response to extensive requests for guidance and for information
and advice that have been put forward by school administrators and teachers
and, in some cases, even parents who are seeking practical solutions to
this challenge.

And the challenge here is not to isolate anybody, it's not to discriminate
against anybody, it's not to make anybody unsafe -- it's actually to ensure
that our schools are as inclusive and respectful and safe as they can
possibly be.  And that's why the guidance that we've put forward includes
tangible, specific suggestions for how that can be achieved.

So let me just give you one example.  There are some school districts
across the country that have sought to enhance the privacy of their
students by making relatively minor changes to shared-use facilities.  In
some cases, that means just putting up curtains so that people have more
privacy when they're changing their clothes or taking showers in what had
previously been shared-use facilities.  So that is something that benefits
all students, and that's what we're looking for -- solutions that protect
the safety and dignity of every single student in the school.

Q    And if schools individually decide not to follow this guidance, there
isn't a threat that they could lose federal funding --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, if there are schools -- first of all, let me just state
that it is my strongly held belief -- and I'm pretty sure I'm going to be
right about this -- that the vast majority of schools and school districts
and school administrators across the country will welcome this guidance and
will implement it.  For those that don't, there's an established process
for them to raise any concerns that they may have.  And there's an
established process for that, and we'll go through it.  But the vast
majority of schools and school administrators will incorporate this advice
as they confront the challenge of ensuring that they're promoting the kind
of respectful, safe learning environment that can ensure the success of all
of their students.

Q    Okay, and I'm going to just switch topics.  Chairman Rogers is saying
he's put together a Zika measure -- and he didn't put a dollar figure
amount, but it's safe to say it's going to be well under what you all have
asked, even under the Senate, of $1.1 trillion [sic].  So are you willing
to accept $1.1 trillion?  Is that enough money to fight Zika?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I guess I haven't seen the details related to Chairman
Rogers's proposal.  I think what I would encourage him to do before he puts
it forward -- I don't know if he has yet -- but if he hasn't, if there's
still time, he should consult with the public health professionals that the
administration talked to in putting forward our funding request for what is
necessary to do everything possible to protect the American people from the
Zika virus.  Time's a-wastin'.  And you saw that from the graphic that we
presented in the briefing earlier this week.  As the weather warms up, as
the mosquito population grows, the risk to pregnant women and their babies
all across the country grows.

And so it's long past time for people like Chairman Rogers, who's got a
substantial responsibility here -- he's the Chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee -- when our public health professionals say that
they need resources to protect the American people, they're looking exactly
at Chairman Rogers to see exactly what he's doing.  And here we are, three
months after the administration has put forward our proposal, that he comes
forward with a much smaller one that is inconsistent with the
recommendations of our public health professionals.  It's also inconsistent
of the request that was put forward by Democratic and Republican governors
from across the country who said that they needed urgent congressional
action to provide the necessary resources to keep the American people safe.

     So before that proposal is put forward, I would encourage the Chairman
to consult with governors who are responsible for the safety of the
citizens of their state and the public health professionals who have taken
a look at this, and understand exactly what can be done and what should be
done to ensure the safety and security of the American people, and
particularly pregnant women and their babies.

     Roberta.

     Q    Hezbollah's top military commander has been killed, and I'm
wondering, does the administration have any understanding of who was
responsible for that, and any comment on what impact this may have on the
group?

     MR. EARNEST:  I've certainly seen reports that Mustafa Badreddine was
killed this week in Syria.  And we noted the fact that preparations are
underway for his funeral.  Badreddine was Hezbollah's top military
commander.  In June of 2011, a special tribunal for Lebanon charged him
with the 2005 attack that killed former Prime Minister Hariri.  In
September of 2012, the United States imposed sanctions against Hezbollah
leaders, including Bedreddine, in part to expose Hezbollah's support for
the Assad regime and its role in conducting indiscriminate terrorist
attacks in Syria and Lebanon.

     We've noted that the Syrian regime and Hezbollah have a long military
alliance, and Hezbollah leaders have previously sought safe haven in Syria
and have even routed weapons from Iran into Lebanon.  So the interplay
between the Assad regime and Hezbollah has been well chronicled.

     So we've seen the reports of his death.  I can't independently confirm
them.  And I guess the thing that I can confirm is that there were no U.S.
or coalition aircraft in the area where he was reported to be killed.  But
I can't further confirm the reports.

     Q    Can you speak to what impact the U.S. feels this will have on the
group and its activities?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, we know that the Assad regime relied heavily on
Hezbollah for military support in the ongoing chaos inside of Syria.  The
Assad regime, and President Assad himself, has personally benefitted from
the activities that Hezbollah has carried out, so it's hard for me to draw
any firm conclusions about what operational impact this would have.  But
obviously the concerns that we've previously expressed about Hezbollah I
think are consistent with our ongoing efforts to reduce the violence inside
of Syria and get all of the parties, including the Assad regime, to abide
by the ceasefire.  Those are our priorities because we want to try to bring
about a political solution to the chaos inside of Syria.

     Q    On the school bathroom issue, how concerned is the administration
about the legal challenges?  The Texas attorney general is saying that this
oversteps the administration's constitutional authority.  And can you speak
to -- I mean, you said very clearly to Kathleen that you expect the vast
majority of schools will implement the guidance.  But for those that don't,
what happens with them?  Is the administration actively going to follow up
with them and punish them in some way?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, there's an established process for schools and the
Department of Education to discuss guidance that they've been provided.  I
just want to reiterate -- and this is important for people who are
interested in the legal aspect of this -- there's no additional requirement
under the applicable law that's being imposed on schools.  There's just
not, despite the claims of political opponents of the administration.

There is a strong desire on the part of some politicians to try and score
some cheap political points by presenting a solution to a problem that they
can't prove exists.  And what the administration has tried to do is to
provide, at the request of school administrators, practical, real-world
advice they can use in their school communities to address this challenge.
That's the practical offering that we have put forward here.

It's a lot different than the argument that others are making.  For
example, is the Texas attorney general suggesting somehow that it would be
practical to station a law enforcement officer outside of every public
bathroom in an educational facility and check people's birth certificates
on the way in?  That doesn't sound like a practical application to me.  It
also doesn't sound like small government to me.  It certainly sounds like a
government intrusion to me.  But, again, that's what's hard to sift through
in all of this.  What exactly is the practical argument or suggestion that
they're making?

     I recognize that they've got some sharp political arguments that were
honed over years of morning drive-time radio in Houston, but school
administrators don't have the benefit of just talking.  They actually have
a functional responsibility to protect the safety and dignity of every
student at their school.  And the vast majority of school administrators
take that responsibility quite seriously.  And I think we'll welcome and
implement the guidance that's been issued by the Department of Education
today.

     We'll move around.  Gregory.

     Q    A lot of times when a guidance or regulation or directive comes
from a federal agency, it's portrayed as a White House action.  Could you
address what this transgender bathroom issue -- did this come from the
White House?  Was the White House consulted?  How unitary is the unitary
executive on things like this?  I guess what I'm asking is, is the White
House and the Obama administration synonymous, for all intents and
purposes, to --

     MR. EARNEST:  Putting forward guidance like this is the responsibility
of the Department of Education.  And they have to consider a broad range of
policy implications for schools all across the country.  So this is the
responsibility of the Department of Education, but you would expect the
White House to be responsible for coordinating policy decisions that are
made by agencies.

     So of course the White House was aware of the policy deliberations
that have been underway at the Department of Education for quite some time,
but ultimately this is the responsibility and the function of the
Department of Education, and they are the ones who received requests from
schools all across the country, and they are the ones who are putting
forward guidance for how schools can deal with this particular situation.

     Ron.

     Q    What is the rationale that the administration has come to, to
base this guidance on Title IX, just to be clear about that?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, I'm happy to be overruled by an attorney at the
Department of Justice or the Department of Education that you can consult
after this hearing -- or after this briefing, but let me try.

My understanding is that Title IX applies specifically to preventing sex
discrimination in educational institutions.  And the idea that individuals
are discriminated against because of their gender identity is the basis for
the guidance that we're putting forward.  Nobody should be discriminated
against because of who they are.  And our suggestion is that the rules
should apply to everybody equally, and that's the basis of this guidance --
that every student should have access to facilities that every other
student has access to.  No one should be discriminated against because of
who they are.  And that's the basis for this guidance.

     That's also why we say no student is forced to use shared facilities.
And if there are alternate facilities available, that are made available by
administrators, then every student should have access to those as well.

     Q    But why shouldn't local communities be making these very intimate
decisions?  How does the federal government know what's best in so many
different communities where there are different cultural sensitivities?
Why is this not a local matter?

     MR. EARNEST:  It is a local matter.  That is exactly the position of
the Obama administration.

     Q    But why is the federal government involved?

     MR. EARNEST:  The federal government is providing specific suggestions
based on examples that we've collected from across the country.  And the
guidance is presented -- it is not an additional requirement under the
applicable law.  It doesn't provide any obligation to a student, for
example, to use a shared facility.  Rather, what it does is we have
consulted with schools all across the country and surfaced good
suggestions, good examples -- in some cases, even best practices -- for
addressing this situation.  That's the essence of guidance that's at the
essence of the coordinating role that the Department of Education plays.
At the same time, Ron, there's a long history in our country of the federal
government playing a very important role in ensuring that people aren't
discriminated against.

     Q    With regard to the health care law and the new rule, what's
different?  How does this apply to the transgender community specifically
now?  What's different?

     MR. EARNEST:  So this is a good example of what I was just talking
about.  There is a new rule that is part of the Affordable Care Act, or the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act, that prohibits discrimination
based on race, color, national origin, sex, gender identity, age or
disability, and it ensures that individuals with limited English
proficiency can access language assistance when they're seeking health care.

     Again, a basic responsibility of the federal government -- and this
has been true throughout our nation's history -- is ensuring that people
aren't discriminated against.  And that's particularly true when it comes
to health care as well.  And that's true of any potential sex
discrimination, but that also is relevant to discrimination that could be
targeted at people because of their race, because of a perceived
disability, because somebody is pregnant, because somebody doesn't speak
English very well.  We believe people should be treated the same and
afforded the same kind of opportunities, regardless of these specific
individual characteristics.

     Q    Isn't the mention of transgender patients -- isn't that
specific?  Isn't that new?  Isn't that different?

     MR. EARNEST:  All of what I've laid out is a new part of the rule
that's been issued today.

     Q    What was the harm, in terms of the transgender community?  Was
there some identifiable problem out there that required this clarification
or this augmentation to the rule?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, Ron, this is much broader than just
applying to the transgender community.  But the transgender community is
included.  In the same way that we want to prevent discrimination against
pregnant women, we want to make sure that we're preventing discrimination
against transgendered women.  In the same way that we're preventing
discrimination against people who don't speak English very well or people
who have a specific disability, we want to make sure that transgendered men
are not discriminated against either.

     Q    Specifically because there's some concern in that community about
access to transition drugs and medications and services, was that something
that the administration was concerned about in terms of trying to, I guess
you could say, refine this rule?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, I guess in terms of the way that it has an impact
on individual health care decisions, I'd refer you to Health and Human
Services for answering that question.  But, look, the idea behind this
specific rule is to prevent discrimination against a wide range of groups.

     Q    One other area.  There are these reports about immigration raids
that are supposedly happening during May.  You've heard even Secretary
Clinton and Senator Sanders comment on this.  There's the belief that the
administration is going to conduct huge raids during May and June, rallying
up significant numbers of women and children, recent people who have
crossed the country in significant numbers.  Is that true?  Is there
something different happening now?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, this is an excellent question.  We're talking
about a DHS enforcement action, so there are some limitations about what I
can say, but let me help you understand exactly the policy that DHS is
implementing.  And I think I can largely answer your question.

The first is -- and this is something that Secretary Johnson himself has
said -- that the operations that are underway are merely the continuation
of operations that were announced in January and in March.  And those
operations are conducted under the rubric of the guidance that President
Obama and Secretary Johnson put in place in November of 2014.  And that is
guidance that made a priority of individuals who are convicted criminals or
otherwise a threat to public safety, or individuals who were apprehended
after crossing the border after January 1st of 2014.

     So we've made clear that our priorities are people who pose a threat
to the community, people who are convicted criminals, or people who have
only recently crossed the border.  So those priorities remain in place, and
those priorities are followed even as these operations continue.

     Let me say two more things.  The first is, no one is removed if they
have an ongoing, pending claim or appeal for asylum or some other form of
humanitarian relief.  People are given access to due process.  And that is
a foundational principle for all of this.  So the only people who are the
targets of these operations are people who are subject to an order by an
immigration court for removal and people who have also, in addition to
being subject to that order, have exhausted any potential claims that they
have for humanitarian relief.

     The last thing is DHS enforcement agents also follow what I understand
is to be longstanding guidance that ensures that these operations are not
conducted in sensitive places.  These operations are not conducted in
schools or hospitals or places of worship, for example.

     Q    So is there no reason to fear that the numbers of deportations
aren't going to increase or spike -- whatever words you want to use now --
because there's something, a specific operation underway that's different
from what's normally happening there along the border?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, what Secretary Johnson has described is
that the operations that are underway now are a continuation of operations
that were previously announced.

     But look, I think we would anticipate that the deportation numbers
would continue to go up.  This administration is serious about enforcing
the law.  And I recognize that our political opponents don't like to
acknowledge that fact.  But we've made clear how we're going to use law
enforcement resources to enhance or border security and to enhance the
security of communities across the country.  Most importantly, we're going
to enforce our laws.

     And this is something that President Obama is committed to.  And the
truth is, we would have a whole lot more resources to do exactly that if
Republicans in the House of Representatives had not blocked comprehensive
immigration reform legislation that did include an historic investment in
our border security.  But we do not enjoy the benefits of that border
security today because House Republicans blocked the passage of that
legislation.

     Q    And just lastly, it's not your political opponents -- well, some
of the people who are objecting to this or raising concerns about this are
Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders, who I wouldn't think you'd consider
political opponents.

     MR. EARNEST:  No, but it's our political opponents who suggest that
President Obama is not interested in enforcing the law.  And I think that
is demonstrably false.  That's that point that I'm making.  That's the
reason that we're having this conversation right now.

     Anita.  Oh, Leslie, I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.

     Q    That's okay.  She was here yesterday.

     MR. EARNEST:  She was.  It's nice to see you, Leslie.

     Q    That's fine, thanks.  I had a couple questions on the gender
guidelines you sent out last night.  Given that North Carolina's House Bill
2, that's sort of part of this, is headed to the courts, why did the White
House feel the need to put out this directive to the law?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, this is a directive that is responsive to requests
that we've received all across the country from school administrators and
teachers and parents and others.  So this is not a response to the ongoing
legal dispute related to HB2.  This is a response to requests that the
Department of Education has received from teachers and administrators all
across the country.

     Q    But you've cautioned before about being careful of not putting
your finger on the scale.  Doesn't this sort of suggest that you're putting
the White House's finger on the scale?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, we've been quite clear about the need to keep
enforcement actions separate from any sort of political interference.  This
is not an enforcement action.  This is a policy decision that was made by
the Department of Education.  And, yes, the White House was appropriately
involved in coordinating that policy decision.  But ultimately it's the
responsibility of the Department of Education to make this policy decision
and to communicate it to the schools and administrators all across the
country.

     Notably, it's not an enforcement action.  It does not add a
requirement to the applicable law.  And it doesn't pose any requirements on
students for the use of shared facilities.

     Q    One of the other questions I had for you.  You mentioned -- you
were asked about the lieutenant governor's comments on it, and you said
that it runs the risk -- or it underscores the risk of electing a
right-wing radio host.

     MR. EARNEST:  To statewide office, yes.

     Q    Yes, to statewide office.  Yes.

     MR. EARNEST:  Yes.  (Laughter.)

     Q    Given that the White House last year when the Supreme Court ruled
on same-sex marriage, the White House put the lights out on the fountain,
how much of this was a political consideration in doing these guidelines?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think as I pointed out before, the guidelines
contain practical advice and suggestions for school administrators across
the country that have to deal with this challenge inside their
communities.  They don't have the luxury of relying on political arguments
that are an attempt to try to score some political points that propose to
address a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.  These are
school administrators who are trying to do the right thing.  They're trying
to promote an atmosphere of dignity and security for the students and their
schools.  And so what the Department of Education has put forward are
practical suggestions for how exactly they can do that consistent with
civil rights law.

Q    And the White House is not looking to score any political points on
it, even though it's been hailed by a number of organizations as a new
frontier in same-sex law?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I'm not surprised to hear that there are people who
agree that we shouldn't discriminate against people because of who they
are.  I think most Americans agree with that notion.  So that's part of why
I anticipate that school administrators across the country would welcome
this guidance.

Look, I'll also say, I think school administrators across the country who
don't agree with the politics of this administration will also welcome
these suggestions, because they recognize that they have a challenge that
they have to deal with and that, frankly, they don't have the luxury of
engaging in a partisan political argument with a right-wing radio host.  In
fact, what they have to do is they have to provide for the safety and
dignity of the students who are under their care.  And that's exactly what
this guidance does, is it gives them some useful tools for considering a
range of options that they can use to do exactly that.

So this has very little to do with politics, except for our critics who
want to make this entirely about politics.  This administration is
interested in providing workable, practical solutions to school
administrators who are trying to provide for the safety and dignity of the
students under their care.

Thanks, Leslie.  Mark.

Q    Josh, is it the intention of the administration that the guidance
letter be seen as a threat to deny federal funds to school districts that
don't comply with the policy decisions as interpreted by DOE and DOJ?

MR. EARNEST:  No, they should not view it that way.  They should view this
as guidance, as specific suggestions and a framework for dealing with a
very straightforward challenge:  How do school administrators, all across
the country, ensure that they're protecting both the safety and dignity of
every single student at the school.  It's as simple as that.  And what the
Department of Education has done is they've drawn on their own internal
expertise, and they've drawn on the creative solutions that have been
implemented by school administrators all across the country to put all that
good information in one place and provide some practical advice to school
administrators who are trying to solve this problem.  And that's a good
thing.

I think what is true, what is undeniably true is the foundation of this
guidance is the principle that people shouldn't be discriminated against
just because of who they are.  And school administrators don't have a
glamorous job.  These are individuals who, I think in most cases, feel
quite passionate about their work.  They view their work as a calling.
They're looking to prepare the next generation of Americans to succeed.
And they want to create a learning environment where every student can feel
safe, where every student can feel included, where every student can feel
respected.  That's what the vast majority of school administrators are
interested in, and that's why I think the vast majority of school
administrators are going to use this guidance, they're going to carefully
consider the suggestions that have been put forward by the Department of
Education, and they're going to put forward a solution that works in their
community.  That's the way this should work.

Q    Could you see how some might see the guidance letter as an implied
threat of loss of federal funds, being that you mentioned that under the
provisions of Title IX, schools that receive federal funds are obligated to
comply with the provisions that are stated forth in the guidance letter?

MR. EARNEST:  Look, there is a desire in the guidance to be as clear as
possible about why this guidance is being issued.  But look, it's quite
clear what we're interested in here.  The Department of Education is
interested in providing guidance and suggestions to school administrators
who are trying to do the right thing.  And that right thing is to prevent
people from being discriminated against, but also make sure that every
single student in their school has their safety and their dignity protected.

Q    On another issue -- do you have any further guidance on the WASPs
legislation?

MR. EARNEST:  I do not.  This is the bill about the --

Q    Women Airforce Service Pilots.

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, the World War II women Airforce veterans -- pilots.  I
do not believe that we have received that from Congress yet.  I don't know
if we've got an update on that.  But we'll be tracking that, and we'll keep
you posted on that status.  But the President does intend to sign it.

Q    Right.  And you said yesterday.  Do you know why the President could
not have, as Commander-in-Chief, directed the Army to allow a burial for
these women at Arlington without legislation?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't know exactly how the law works.  I don't know if his
authority as Commander-in-Chief could have been used for that purpose.  But
we certainly welcomed the bipartisan legislation from Congress that would
make the use of that -- or the exercise of that authority unnecessary,
because Congress has passed a law making it possible.

Chris.

Q    Thanks.  Everyone is in my business today.

MR. EARNEST:  I'm sorry?

Q    Everyone is in my business today.  (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  I know, man.  (Laughter.)  You got to elbow those people out.

Q    Yesterday, you said that there was a determination, as a result of
multiagency review, that there would be no loss of federal funds at this
time to North Carolina as a result of possible suit.  But at the same time,
this guidance on transgender students is issued.  Isn't that sending a
mixed message?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, no, I don't think it's a mixed message.  I think it's
important for people to understand what's happening here.  This guidance
that was put forward by the Department of Education does not impose any new
requirements under the applicable law.  It's guidance that's issued to
school administrators in school districts all across the country.

The conversation that we've been having over the course of this week has
largely been centered on the state of North Carolina and what impact their
law could have on their compliance with the Civil Rights Act.  So it was
related to a specific piece of legislation that was passed almost literally
in the dark of night by the legislation that convened a one-day special
session to pass this bill.  It was signed the same day by the governor.
And the rebuke from business leaders in North Carolina and business leaders
who are contemplating doing business in North Carolina has been forceful.
And I think it's an indication that the legislation that was passed by the
state legislature was much more -- was much broader than just something
that would apply in an educational setting.

So the situations are quite different.  I think they do illustrate how
consistent and forceful this administration has been about fighting against
the idea that people could be discriminated against because of who they
are.  That's a principle the President does feel strongly about.  It's
obviously a principle that Attorney General Lynch spoke movingly about.
And preventing discrimination and treating people fairly is a core
principle that does guide a lot of the policy that's made by the Obama
administration.  But the enforcement action that was announced by the
Attorney General this week was enforcement action that was the decision of
attorneys at the Department of Justice.  That decision was not influenced
by White House officials.  The notification that was distributed by the
Department of Education today is not an enforcement action; it was a policy
decision that did include some White House involvement, but was the realm
and responsibility of the Department of Education.

     Q    But nonetheless, given that the major component of House Bill 2
is that transgender students in North Carolina are prohibited from using
the restroom consistent with their gender identity, doesn't that
necessarily mean that even if schools not to follow this guidance that the
Department of Education has put out, that they will not suffer a loss of
federal funds?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what this says is -- well, the way this works is that
if there are schools -- and I think they will be in the minority -- but if
there are schools across the country that do come forward and indicate that
they do not intend to be in compliance with this guidance, then there is an
established process for litigating those differences with the Department of
Education.  So there's an established process for this.  We don't have to
invent one.

Q    And was it planned to make the announcement that there would be no
loss of federal funds for North Carolina at this time, in conjunction with
the announcement from the Department of Education and Justice for this
guidance for transgender students?  Was that coincidental?

MR. EARNEST:  No, these were separate actions.  So, again, as it relates to
North Carolina in consideration of HB2, the policy decision that was made,
even as agencies were considering whether or not the passage and
implementation of HB2 would put a range of federally funded programs at
risk in the state of North Carolina, the decision that was made was to not
withhold any funding until the enforcement action that was announced by the
Department of Justice had made its way through the courts.  So that was a
very specific thing, and that was a response to developments that occurred
this week with regard to the situation in North Carolina.

This guidance is guidance that has been in the works for years, but it is
guidance that is broadly consistent with the kinds of principles that this
President and this administration has long fought for.

Q    One last question.  Even after you said yesterday, with regard to HB2,
that there would be no loss of federal funds to the state as the
enforcement action is ongoing in the courts, a Department of Education
spokesperson said the review there is ongoing.  Do you know why the
spokesperson would have said that?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't.  But this is a little complicated, so it may have
just been a bit of a miscommunication.  But as it relates specifically to
HB2, no federal agencies will be making a decision to withhold funding as a
result of HB2 until the DOJ enforcement process has worked its way through
the courts.

Margaret.

Q    Josh, is this the extent of guidance like this?  Or do you foresee
similar directives to come from the administration?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I'm not aware of any other -- I mean, when you say
"like this," you mean guidance that could have an impact on --

Q    Well, you said that you had received inquiries from the educational
community, that you're responding to it.  Have you received inquiries from
other industries, companies, elsewhere, also demanding this kind of clarity
on how they should be treating transgender people?

MR. EARNEST:  It's certainly possible.  I'm not aware of any guidance
that's likely to attract the amount of interest that this one has.

Q    I'm going to go back to an idea you were talking about here with
Kathleen.  Can you just clarify:  Does the President see this as a
clear-cut civil rights issue?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think there obviously is a question of civil rights
here.  And there is a question of how can we ensure that the civil rights
of every student is protected.  There's also a question of how do we ensure
that the dignity and safety of every student is protected.  And the
guidance that we have put forward would do both.  And again, I think that's
why we're going to see a lot of school administrators come forward and
announce their intent to implement this guidance, or they're going just
going to implement the guidance without announcing it.  Or, like many
school administrators, they're already doing this kind of work to ensure
the safety and dignity of every student at the school.

And this is the thing that I was mentioning before.  This is something that
over the last week or two has been a pretty loud part of the political
debate.  But this is something that school administrators all across the
country have been dealing with for quite some time.  So they don't have the
luxury of falling back on talking points.  They've got to implement
practical, real-world solutions that make a difference when it comes to the
safety and dignity of students at their school.  Posting a law enforcement
officer outside of every bathroom, and checking the birth certificate of
people who are walking through the door -- that's not a practical
solution.  That's not going to enhance anybody's safety.  It's not going to
enhance anybody's dignity.  That's impractical.  It's rooted in a political
argument that has very little grounding in actual facts.

     So I recognize that that is sort of something that politicians
frequently do, which is make arguments that may sound good politically just
to score some political points.  But to do that at the expense of students
all across the country is something I don't think that they should do.

     Q    And the question of civil rights, I mean, are you parsing here
that it's not a civil rights issue?  I mean, is this because the courts
still haven't ruled on whether there is protection under the law of
transgender persons as a protected class, as an extension of sex
discrimination?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think what's undeniable is this is an issue
where case law is still being built up.  But, look, I think the reading of
this guidance I think is pretty common-sense.  You can't discriminate
against people because of their gender identity.  You can't force people
with a specific gender identity to use a different facility.  That's
discriminating against them.

     What we should do is we should treat every student the same.  We
should protect every student's safety.  We should protect every student's
dignity.  We should give every student access to individual-use facilities
if that's what they prefer and they're available.  That's the cornerstone
here of our argument.

     Q    You're saying the case law is still being built up, but you're
not going so far as to say that this is on shaky legal ground because we
still haven't seen the federal protection?

     MR. EARNEST:  I don't mean to telegraph any lack of confidence in the
legal conclusion that's been reached here.  The law is clear.  And I think
it should be notable that it's not just the Department of Education that
signed on to this, but the Department of Justice has too.

     The point that I'm trying to make, Margaret, is that this is something
that is relatively new.  This is a relatively new policy consideration that
school administrators are having to make.  This is a relatively new element
of our political debate.

     I was thinking about Chris earlier today because there was some
discussion about whether or not the word "transgender" had ever been
uttered from the White House podium before.  And I think that's a pretty
apt illustration of how this debate is changing and has emerged.  So it's
new to our political debate, but this is not new when you consider what
school administrators have had to do to ensure the safety and security of
every student at their school.  This is something that they have to deal
with every day.  And that's why most of them don't have a lot of tolerance
for a bunch of cheap political rhetoric.  They're looking for solutions.
And solutions are exactly what were provided by the Department of Education
in their letter today.

     Rich.

     Q    Thanks, Josh.  You're saying that this is a problem that school
administrators are dealing with, but then it was also a problem that didn't
exist until it entered this political realm.  How long has the
administration been getting questions about this?  And did the North
Carolina law prompt this guidance or speed its timeline?

     MR. EARNEST:  It did not.  This is guidance that had been in the works
for years.  This is relatively new to our political debate, but again, this
is something that has been the source of questions that the Department of
Education has received for a number of years now.  And again, those
questions to the Department of Education were not rooted in the desire of a
high school principal to make a political argument.  It was rooted in the
desire of a high school principal to get some advice and to rely on the
experts at the Department of Education to help him or her ensure the safety
and dignity of every single student at their school.  That's what these
principals are looking for.

     Look, in most cases, principals aren't making a whole lot of money.
It's not a glamorous job.  But they do it because they care deeply about
our children.  They care deeply about providing a good, quality education
to our kids.  They care deeply about the future of this country.  They care
deeply about ensuring that a learning environment that they are responsible
for managing is one that's respectful, that's inclusive, and that is safe.
And that's the kind of guidance that they were seeking from the Department
of Education about how best to accomplish those goals.

     Q    Doesn't the administration think, though, or acknowledge at
least, that there still is a very difficult process here?  For example, the
guidance says that when a student or the student's parent or guardian, as
appropriate, notifies the administration that the student will assert a
gender identity that differs from their previous representations, the
school will begin treating that student consistent with the gender
identity.  And then it goes on to say the gender transition can happen
swiftly or over a long duration of time.  If a principal is sitting in
front of a student, there could be questions of clarity, sincerity.  These
are all things that are still not answered and out there, right?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think this goes to Ron's question.  We
acknowledge -- and, in fact, this is what should happen:  School
administrators do have to make decisions about the best way to protect the
dignity and safety of the students at their school.  And, yes, these are
complicated issues, and that's setting aside even the kinds of arrangements
that might be available to a school administrator.  And so many of our
schools are so wildly underfunded, right?  So you face this question about
are we going to build a new bathroom, or are we going to provide up-to-date
textbooks in our science classrooms.  These are practical questions that
administrators are going to have to answer for themselves.

     That's why it would not be wise for the federal government to be
imposing a solution or adding an additional requirement under the law.
That's, in fact, why we have not done that, because we believe in the value
and the importance of local control of schools.  So we want schools and we
want school administrators to be reaching the kinds of conclusions and the
kinds of solutions that are in the best interests of that community and
that are in the best interests of the students who attend that school.

     So that's also why you've seen the U.S. Department of Education draw
upon solutions that have been implemented by schools all across the country
and surfacing those good ideas and sharing them with other school
administrators that are trying to solve the same problem.  That's a pretty
high-functioning U.S. Department of Education providing a valuable service
to school administrators all across the country that are simply just trying
to provide a safe and inclusive learning environment for their kids.

     Q    Lastly, the administration has come out very strongly on these
issues, with the action against North Carolina, with its guidance today.
And those are domestic issues.  Internationally, the United States still
has relationships with and gives aid to countries that puts LGBT people
behind bars, charges them and executes them.  Is the U.S. going to exert
its influence internationally on this?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, Rich, I would tell you that we do.  The President
strongly advocates for the rights of all people when he travels around the
world.  And we certainly have made direct statements -- let me say it this
way.  The President has been crystal-clear both in public settings, but
also in private settings, in his conversations with world leaders about our
expectation and the priority that we place in this country on human rights.

     Q    So we threaten funding?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that that has been a question that has
been discussed in a number of other settings about whether or not
significant human rights violations undermine the relationship that the
United States has with other countries, or in some cases, could even
interrupt funding that is provided by the United States to other countries.

     There was an amusing situation a couple of years ago where there were
questions about whether or not the United States was going to interrupt the
federal aid that we provide to Egypt in the aftermath of a crackdown on
political dissidents there.  Now, that situation is not funny, but it did
provoke an amusing response here as I tried to describe the way that
funding is provided to individual countries and tranches, and so some
people had some fun with that.

     But it underscores that this is a policy priority of the President
when he travels around the world.  I've sat in rooms where the President is
talking to world leaders, and the President of the United States
respectfully but directly raises concerns about the treatment of minorities
in their countries, including the rights of gays and lesbians, and the
rights of political dissidents, the rights of women, the rights of
journalists.  And, look, as a country, these are values that we are deeply
invested in and we use our influence around the world to try to advance
those values.  And the President makes that case rather forcefully, both in
public and in private, on American soil and when he's abroad.

     Q    Quickly on the guidance.  Do you expect lawsuits?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, what I expect is that the vast majority of
school administrators are going to take a look at this guidance and figure
out a way to implement it in their schools.

     Kenneth.

     Q    Josh, thank you.  To follow up to the follow-up to the follow-up
on the question of transgender guidance.

     MR. EARNEST:  I'm summoning a lot of patience today.

     Q    Does the administration in its final months expect to issue any
more guidance on topics, issues that the Education Department is dealing
with?  For instance, there's a hearing that happened this morning where
mothers said that football slowly killed her son because of concussions.
So I'm curious, are there any other directives or issues or guidance that
the administration plans to give out that impacts the nation's children,
like guidance on CTE?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don't have any announcements about additional
Department of Education guidance that's likely to be issued in the months
ahead.  You can certainly check with the Department of Education to see if
they can give you a preview of what other policies they may have in store.

     Q    On Zika, back to that for a second here.  You mentioned yesterday
a list of things that the Republican-led Congress has not done, such as
Zika, Puerto Rico, opioid addiction.  Well, the House passed --

     MR. EARNEST:  Passing a budget.

     Q    Passing a budget.  The House passed 18 bills on opioid addiction
yesterday.  And on Zika, I know you mentioned that the funding is not on
the current legislation that's making its way through right now.  Does the
President expect to pass these pieces of legislation if they reach his
desk?  And are you championing the bipartisan effort by the Florida
senators, Rubio and Nelson, to give fully funded $1.9 billion?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, we certainly welcome the bipartisan support that
our Zika proposal has received, including from Senator Rubio.  I think this
reflects the degree to which, for all of our policy differences with
Senator Rubio, when it comes to looking out for the public health and
wellbeing of the American people, there shouldn't be a partisan
difference.  And I think Senator Rubio and Senator Nelson both understand
the consequences for mothers and babies in Florida of not doing everything
possible to fight Zika.  So we certainly welcome that show of bipartisan
support from Senator Rubio and Senator Nelson, and hope that the United
States Senate and the United States House will listen to the advice of our
public health experts.

     The $1.9 billion number was not chosen at random -- it actually
reflects the sum total of efforts that our public health professionals say
they can and should take over the long term to protect the American people
from Zika.  So if there are some public health professionals in the United
States Congress that have looked at this carefully enough to offer up their
own alternative, they can do that.  But $1.9 billion is what our public
health professionals say that we need.  $1.9 billion is what our bipartisan
governors from all across the country believe that Congress should provide
so that they can fight Zika in their communities.

     So there's strong bipartisan support for our proposal because it's
rooted in the facts, because it's rooted based on the advice of the top
scientists in the country.  That's why we welcome the support of Republican
senators like Senator Rubio.   That's why we welcome the support of
Democratic and Republican governors.  And we would welcome bipartisan
congressional passage of some legislation that's long overdue.

     Q    But would the President sign anything less than the $1.9 billion
request?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, this is a process that, unfortunately, is still
working its way through the United States Congress.  We would have liked to
have seen Congress begin this effort many months ago.  The President
convened a meeting with his national security team and his public health
experts in January to discuss this issue.  Just a couple of weeks later, he
signaled his intent to request resources from Congress.  Just a couple of
weeks after that, we put forward a specific proposal that detailed how that
$1.9 billion would be spent.

     So we worked at a very rapid pace over the winter to put forward this
request.  Three months now have gone by, almost three months, and we've
seen very little movement from Congress, and that's been quite
disappointing.  But maybe as people like Senator Rubio weigh in and
demonstrate bipartisan support for this recommendation from our public
health professionals, maybe we'll build up some momentum here.

     Suzanne.

     Q    Josh, on another issue.  On the day that the President is hosting
several world leaders -- the refugee crisis, it was back in September that
he pledged he wanted to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country by
the end of fiscal 2016, October.  So you have some time, but the latest
State Department statistic is showing just a little more than 2,000.  Is
the administration confident that you'll reach your goal of 10,000 by
October?  And can you also explain some of the delays and the
slower-than-expected process that they've gone through?  What's been some
of the issues?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, Suzanne, the challenge here is simply this -- that
individuals who enter the United States through the refugee program are
subjected to more screening, more background checks than any other
individual who tries to enter the United States.  These individuals have to
undergo a background check, they're interviewed in person, biometric data
about them is collected, and then all of that information is then run
through databases that are maintained by the United States military, U.S.
intelligence agencies, other national security organizations in the United
States, but also law enforcement organizations in the United States and law
enforcement organizations overseas.

     So all of that work takes time.  And the President was clear that
we're not going to cut corners when it comes to security, even as we meet
this ambitious goal.  So I don't think anybody was under the expectation
that there would be a linear increase in the number of refugees that would
be admitted to the United States.  I think we always contemplated that this
is a program that would ramp up over time as we added capacity and as we
added our capacity to conduct these background checks.

     So there's no denying that there's a lot of work to do to meet this
goal.  It is an ambitious goal and it will be challenging to get it done.
But last year around this time, there were questions raised about whether
or not we would meet our previous refugee goal because we'd fallen behind
pace.  But yet, based on the good work of our professionals at the
Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security, we did succeed
in meeting that goal last year.  And the President has made clear that
meeting the more ambitious goal this year is a top priority.  And I'm
confident that all the people who are working on this problem understands
the priority that the President has placed on this issue.

     Q    How has the political rhetoric, the harsh language, and some of
the fear that's been drummed up around immigration and around the refugee
crisis impacted the administration's ability to get them through the
pipeline?

     MR. EARNEST:  I don't think it's had an impact.  The people who are
working on this inside the U.S. government are professionals, and they
understand exactly what needs to be done when it comes to implementing
these vigorous background checks.  They understand why it's important that
a thorough vetting be conducted before refugees are admitted to this
country.  And that's what they're doing.  And the political noise has not
impacted their ability to do their jobs.

     Q    And just to be clear, the administration is confident it will be
able to reach its goal of 10,000?

     MR. EARNEST:  I am confident that the people who are operating this
program understand that the President of the United States thinks this is a
top priority, and they have work to do to meet this challenging goal.  So
we certainly intend to reach this goal.

     Janet.

     Q    Hi, Josh.  Thank you.  Going back to immigration, many of the
critics -- immigration critics have called for refugee status for the
Central American families.  Will there be any action on that?  And would
you say that this is in correlation to the spike of Central American
families crossing the border, that have been apprehended at the border in
the last few months?

     MR. EARNEST:  No, it's not.  As Secretary Johnson has indicated, the
operations that are underway are a continuation of operations that were
previously announced.  At the same time, I do think it is important for
people who are in Central America and contemplating making the dangerous
journey through Mexico to try to get to the United States, these operations
should make clear that that's not an option -- that's not a viable option.

     It should also make clear to parents in particular that child
smugglers who say they can sneak their kids into the United States are not
telling the truth.  And, in fact, entrusting your children to those
smugglers is dangerous and we strongly encourage people not to do it.

     So that's an important thing.  It's important for people to understand
what the policy is in the United States.  It's also important for people to
understand what we have tried to do.  And what we have tried to do is to
enhance the assistance that the United States provides to countries like
Guatemala and Honduras.  Last year, in the omnibus budget proposal, about
$700 million was provided by Congress to improve the security situation in
some of those countries or make contributions to try to improve the
security situation there and try to address some of the root causes that
would prompt people to undertake this dangerous journey.

     So if this serves to discourage people from considering to make this
journey, that would be a good thing.  But our motivation for carrying out
these operations is rooted in President Obama and Secretary Johnson's
commitment to enforcing the law.  We're going to do that in a way that is
humane.  We're going to make sure that people have access to due process.
The only people who would be subject to operations like this are people who
are subject to an order of removal by an immigration court.

     The only people who could be part of an operation like this and
removed from the country would be people who have exhausted any sort of
claims for asylum or humanitarian relief.  So there are rules that govern
this, but at the end of the day, the President is serious about enforcing
the law.  The President does continue to believe that there is a better
way, and that comprehensive immigration reform legislation through Congress
would improve the way that we manage our immigration system in this country.

     Q    But there is no viable way for refugee status for these Central
American families?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, there has been a discussion about working with the
United Nations to allow people in Central America to apply for asylum and
be considered, be carefully vetted for inclusion in some sort of refugee
process.  And we have worked diligently with the United Nations to try to
get that process up and running.  There's still a lot of work to do with
regard to establishing that program, but there has been some consideration
that's been given to that idea.

What's notable about that is that is an application process that doesn't
begin in the United States, it actually begins in Central America.  And,
again, that should serve as an encouragement for people who are interested
and think that they may be eligible for that kind of humanitarian relief
that they can apply for it in their home country.  They don't have to
undertake the dangerous journey to try to get to the United States.  They
don't have to trust a smuggler.  They can apply for that status in their
home country.

     Gardiner.

     Q    Josh, as you know, data out today show pretty sharp increases in
murder rates in the last few months in about 20 different cities.  Is that
a reason for concern?  And do you have any more to say on Comey's
interpretation of that data?

     MR. EARNEST:  I don't have anything to say beyond what I said
yesterday.  I will say that when Director Comey was talking about this he
acknowledged that there's a lot of ambiguity about the broader trends,
because in some parts of the country we haven't seen an increase in violent
crime and, overall, crime across the country is at or near historic lows.
The example that he raised that I think is an illustrative one is that we
have seen a spike in violent crime in Dallas, but not in Houston.  So the
question is what accounts for that differing environment?

And so we've got experts at the Department of Justice who are taking a look
at these situations.  What President Obama did last year was actually
direct his Attorney General to ramp up the assistance that we can provide
to local law enforcement that is trying to fight these violent crime spikes
in some communities in the country.  And that additional assistance has
taken a variety of forms.  It has included widespread sting operations that
were carried out by U.S. marshals to round up individuals who were wanted
for violent crimes.  There's also additional assistance that's been
provided to individual law enforcement organizations to improve training of
their law enforcement officers to make them more effective.

So there is some assistance that the federal government can provide to law
enforcement agencies that are dealing with these kinds of spikes.  But it
is unclear what's contributing to those spikes, because we do know that as
a general matter, all across the country crime rates remain at or near
historic lows.

Q    You dismissed his notion that there is some sort of Ferguson effect
and I think you talked about there's no evidence to back that up.  I guess
what I'm trying to understand is do you think that he is wrong, or do you
think that he just doesn't have the evidence to substantiate what he said?
There's sort of a difference -- either you're not sure, or you're sure he's
wrong. Can you help me untangle that?

MR. EARNEST:  I think the point that I was making yesterday is -- and this
is based on a conversation I had with the President -- this administration
makes policy decisions that are rooted in evidence, that are rooted in
science.  We can't make broad, sweeping policy decisions or draw policy
conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.  That's irresponsible and
ultimately counterproductive.

The President actually has a lot of confidence in the vast majority of law
enforcement officers all across the country to do their jobs and to do them
well and to do them selflessly and to do them in a way that is effective in
fighting crime and protecting civil rights at the same time.  The President
does not believe -- at least he has not seen evidence to substantiate the
suggestion that there are a significant number of police officers out there
who are unwilling to do their job because they fear being filmed by
somebody's cellphone.

But, look, if there's evidence that materializes to substantiate that
claim, then we should figure out something to do about it.  So I guess the
point is there isn't evidence out there to draw any firm conclusions about
what's happening.  The President does have a lot of confidence in the vast
majority of law enforcement officers that are selflessly protecting our
communities and doing it in the right way.  But we should look at this
problem and get to the bottom of what exactly is going on.

And Director Comey did indicate that it's unclear what's going on.  He
acknowledged that it's a complicated situation.  That's where he used the
Dallas-Houston comparison to illustrate that there is no clear answer to
what's going on here, and what Director Comey said is we need to spend more
time trying to figure out what's happening.  And he's right about that.
And we should use the evidence that is uncovered to formulate an
appropriate politics response.  And that's what the President believes the
priority should be.

Q    Josh, I mean, there's a lot of uncertainty about everything.  You guys
are swimming in uncertainty.  We all are.  I mean, one has to act in the
face of uncertainty anyway.  You're suggesting, it seems to me, that you're
not acting because you don't have evidence, when, in fact, in nearly every
case, you have to act in the face of uncertainty anyway.  Can you help me
sort of, again, untangle that?

MR. EARNEST:  I think what I would say is we do often -- the President
often talks about this, about how often uncertainty impacts the decisions
that he's required to make as the President of the United States.  That
uncertainty typically applies to situations in which there are no
guarantees that what the President is prepared to choose will work.

So, for example, if we determine that the so-called Ferguson effect is
potentially contributing to an increase in crime, then we need to sit down
and figure out what can we do to address it. And there will be some
uncertainty about whether or not that will work.  But there won't be
uncertainty about the fact that we're trying to solve the right problem,
that we're trying to solve a problem that actually exists, and so
collecting evidence to verify what is possible to know even if, once we get
to the stage of considering solutions, there will naturally be some
uncertainty about what the future holds.  But even in that case, there will
be some evidence to inform the choices that the President has to make.

Q    You've got more dead bodies.  I mean, that's clearly a problem.
Whether --

MR. EARNEST:  No, no, I'm not denying that there is a problem as it relates
to the spike in violent crime in some communities across the country.
That's why the President, last year, ordered the Attorney General to
provide some additional assistance to law enforcement agencies.  We saw the
Marshals Service carry out a widespread sweep that resulted in about 8,000
fugitives being captured.  So there's plenty of evidence to indicate that
there are some communities -- again, this is not a widespread phenomenon,
at least based on what we know now -- but there is evidence to indicate
that there are some communities, including the President's hometown of
Chicago, that are experiencing a troubling surge in violent crime.  And the
President has ordered action, specific action to try to address it.

But there's not evidence at this point to link that surge in violent crime
to the so-called viral video effect, or the Ferguson effect.  There's just
no evidence to substantiate that. And there's some anecdotal evidence to
indicate that that may be having some impact, but there's plenty of
anecdotal evidence that the vast majority of law enforcement officers, men
and women across the country, are doing their job as well as ever; that
they're fighting crime, that they're protecting people's civil rights, that
they're acting selflessly and bravely to communicate -- or to protect the
communities that they are sworn to serve and protect.

So that's the ambiguity that exists.  And that's what we need to get to the
bottom of before we start offering up specific solutions.

Q    On the transgender question, can you help us untangle the President's
role himself?  Like did he play a direct role in the guidance?  Did he meet
with his Attorney General in the last week or recent weeks to discuss
this?  Did he meet with his Education Secretary in the last week or the
week before to discuss this?  Did he encourage the issue himself of this
guidance?  And what in particular might have persuaded him that this was
the right thing to do?  So can you -- a little bit more about what
President Obama himself, what role he played in this?

MR. EARNEST:  What I can tell you about the President is he was he was
regularly updated as this policy process moved forward.  So he was
certainly aware of the policy that was under deliberation by the Department
of Education.  And I can tell you that the outcome does reflect his view
that the Department of Education should be responsive to requests that
they've received from school administrators and that the Department of
Education has an obligation to put forward tangible, real-world suggestions
for how this problem can be addressed in communities all across the country.

The President also agrees that imposing an additional requirement under the
existing law is not something the Department of Education needs to be doing
right now.  So it's possible, and in fact, important for the U.S.
Department of Education to play an appropriate role in offering this
guidance to school administrators that are trying to enhance the safety and
protect the dignity of every student in their community.

Q    The suggestion is that he's sort of a bystander to this guidance
coming out -- that it was part of a process, that it came out of the
departments, and he didn't really do much to encourage or discourage, it
just sort of happened.  Is that an appropriate interpretation?  Or did he
play a more active role?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, obviously the President sets a longer-term vision for
the priorities that his administration is going to pursue.  I can't speak
to all of the conversations that President Obama has had with the Education
Secretary about this or other matters.  But I think it is fair to say --
and I think it's important -- that this kind of announcement reflects the
President's strongly held view about the need to prevent discrimination,
but also the need to protect the safety and dignity of every student in
America.

So this does reflect the President's view.  But, at the same time, there's
an established policy process for considering these kinds of questions and
ensuring that the outcome reflects the priorities that were set by the
President of the United States. In this case, they were.

     Q    In an interview with the Rutgers student newspaper, President
Obama defended his administration's crackdown on leaks and press freedom by
saying the prosecutions were a small sampling.  But the truth is the
administration has targeted more whistleblowers and prosecuted more leak
investigations -- including of my colleagues -- than all previous
administrations combined.  Can you explain the President's remarks?  Does
he -- is he aware of just how many more leak investigations this
administration has conducted versus all of his predecessors?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don't think we're going to get deep into this
today.  But let me say a couple of things about this.  The first is, what
the President said is true, that a number of those investigations were
initiated by the previous administration.  What is also true is questions
of criminal investigations and criminal prosecutions are not influenced by
the President or any other political operatives in the White House.  These
are decisions that are made by Department of Justice prosecutors.

     That's the way the process should work.  And it would be inappropriate
for the President to intervene either way.  It would be inappropriate for
the President of the United States to intervene with the federal prosecutor
and say, you should go investigate this individual.  It would be just as
inappropriate for the President to intervene and say, you should lay off
that guy from The New York Times.  That would be inappropriate too.

     We've got a Department of Justice that is insulated from politics for
a very good reason.  And you should check with them for insight into the
prosecutorial decisions that attorneys at the Department of Justice were
making.

     Q    -- that these prosecutions took place during his administration?
I mean, he then went on to sort of talk about how his notion himself is
that there should be as much freedom as possible.  As you say, these
prosecutions took place during his administration, and your suggestion is
that it took place essentially without any input from him or any of his
direct -- in the White House.

     MR. EARNEST:  And I'm suggesting it would be a genuine scandal if that
were not the case.

     Q    I think that's right.  So is he sorry that this number of
prosecutions took place during his administration, given the fact that he
can do nothing about it?

     MR. EARNEST:  No.  I think the President does believe that people who
swore an oath to protect sensitive information should follow it.  And the
President does believe that the Department of Justice and other agencies
have a role in enforcing that oath.  And that enforcement should take place
without regard to political considerations.  And there's just such an
inquiry that's going on right now that I'm not going to comment on, but I
think is an indication that this is something, at least when it comes to
the handling of these kinds of matters by the Department of Justice, that
should be firmly insulated from politics, and therefore, insulated from
influence by the President of the United States.

     Q    Do you know of any previous state dinner that celebrated five
countries at once, Josh?

     MR. EARNEST:  I don't.  That would make tonight's event all the more
special.

     All right.  Jonathan, I'll give you the last one.  And then we'll do
the week ahead.

     Q    Okay, thank you.  The President is going to Rutgers on Sunday.
Why did he decide to go to Rutgers?  Were any loud voices urging him to
go?  And can you give us an advance preview of what he's going to say there?

     MR. EARNEST:  Well, for years, students and other leaders at Rutgers
have been encouraging President Obama to consider delivering the
commencement address this year because it's the 250th anniversary of the
first commencement address -- the first commencement ceremonies that were
hosted at Rutgers.  So the President is looking forward to participating in
this historic occasion.  It certainly is the mark of a remarkable
institution of higher learning.  I know that Rutgers, in particular, is
quite proud of the class of 2016, and the President is looking forward to
congratulating that class on all that they have achieved.

I think he'll have some observations about the world that they're prepared
to enter.  They're prepared to enter a country and a planet that's rapidly
changing.  And these students are as well-prepared as any students have
ever been to confront those challenges and use this changing environment to
create a better world.  And that's what makes the President so
fundamentally optimistic about the future of our country, and that optimism
is manifested quite well in this year's graduating class at Rutgers.

     So with that, why don't I do a week ahead?

     Q    Will he visit the (inaudible) at all while he's at Rutgers?

     MR. EARNEST:  I don't have any notes about any unplanned, any
unscheduled movements for the President, but we'll see if he is able to
make the most of his visit to Rutgers.

     So on Sunday -- this is not written down here, but obviously on
Sunday, the President will travel to New Jersey and deliver the
commencement address at the 250th commencement at Rutgers University.

     On Monday, the President will host a Medal of Valor ceremony at the
White House.  The Medal of Valor is awarded to public safety officers who
have exhibited exceptional courage, regardless of personal safety, in the
attempt to save or protect others from harm.

     On Tuesday, the President will attend meetings here at the White House.

     On Wednesday, the President will participate in a DNC roundtable.

     On Thursday, the President will award the National Medals of Science
and Technology and Innovation to 17 scientists, engineers, mathematicians
and innovators.  The Medal of Science recognizes individuals who have made
outstanding contributions to science, engineering and mathematics.  The
National Medal of Technology and Innovation recognizes those who have made
lasting contributions to America's competitiveness and quality of life and
helped the nation's technological workforce.

     On Friday, the President will attend meetings at the White House.

     And then on Saturday, the President will depart Washington, D.C. en
route Hanoi, Vietnam.  This trip will highlight the President's ongoing
commitment to the U.S. rebalance to Asia and the Pacific, designed to
increase U.S. diplomatic, economic, and security engagement with the
country and peoples of the region.  So this is obviously next Saturday, a
week from tomorrow, and we'll have a lot more to say about the President's
trip to the Asia Pacific during next week's briefings.

     So with all that, I hope you guys all have a great weekend.  See you
on Monday.

     Q    Starting now?  (Laughter.)

     MR. EARNEST:  I resisted making that joke out of deference, but we'll
pick it back up next week.

                             END                2:45 P.M. EDT

-----

Unsubscribe <
http://messages.whitehouse.gov/accounts/USEOPWHPO/subscriber/new?preferences=true
>

The White House * 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW * Washington DC 20500 *
202-456-1111