Department Press Briefing – April 8, 2025

2:07 p.m. EDT

MS BRUCE: Excellent. Excellent. Hi, everybody. Tuesday.

QUESTION: Happy Tuesday.

MS BRUCE: Yes. We had our trip and we agreed that Monday maybe might not be the best idea. But also, of course, the White House was very busy yesterday, a very busy day for the country and for the world. Andrea Mitchell, nice to see you again here. Matt Lee, not so much, but there you go. (Laughter.) No, what can I say?

QUESTION: I haven’t even opened my mouth yet.

MS BRUCE: No you haven’t. And many of you, the benefit of being in the bullpen is that you got a – you got a very brief visit from the Secretary of State because Matt Lee encountered him somewhere in the hallway —

QUESTION: Right outside the bathroom. (Laughter.)

MS BRUCE: And you invited him – invited him – into the bullpen. And of course —

QUESTION: Male privilege.

MS BRUCE: Yes, that’s right, male privilege right there – invited him into – because he knows – he knows the bullpen from the airplane. The Secretary of State likes talking with you, which is very apparent, to my chagrin sometimes 30 minutes on the record. It makes – it makes a person like me very nervous. But he – but so he sees that – he thinks, oh, this must be my friend, and so he follows him into the room with the bullpen. But I hope you enjoyed that.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS BRUCE: We’re wanting – we’re going to do more – hopefully more of that. And welcome aboard, everyone. Again, thank you very much for being here.

So I do have a couple announcements for you today. Since my last briefing, Secretary Rubio traveled to Brussels to attend the NATO foreign ministers conference. During the conference, he had important conversations with our NATO Allies about increasing defense spending. Indeed, President Trump deserves credit for completely changing the conversation on NATO defense, and we have a Secretary who knows how to have that conversation.

Since the November election, four NATO Allies have publicly announced that they support President Trump’s call for Allies to increase their defense spending to 5 percent of GDP. This is Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Another 10 Allies have announced additional increases to their defense spending since President Trump took office in January.

In the words of Secretary Rubio, “We want NATO to be stronger. We want NATO to be more viable. And the only way NATO can get stronger and more viable is if our partners, the nation-states that comprise this important Alliance, have more capability.”

While in Brussels, Secretary Rubio also met with our Indo-Pacific partners about the threats the Chinese Communist Party poses to our security and prosperity. The region needs to be free from China’s coercive and unfair trade policies. Our security depends on it.

Now, here’s an update on our response to the March 28th earthquake in Burma and Thailand.

The United States has made $9 million available to support the people of Burma through our humanitarian partners. Our team of experts is in Burma surveying conditions on the ground. They arrived on April 1st and deployed to the disaster zone on April 3rd. Our humanitarian response team helps ensure that support is directed to the most affected communities with greatest needs.

We are working with partner countries, as well as international and local partner organizations, to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. As the response shifts from rescue to emergency relief, the United States has support in place to help with emergency shelter, food, medical support, health, access to clean – health, access to clean water, and sanitation.

And now, here at home, President Trump met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday, demonstrating that the United States is a great ally to Israel and that President Trump is the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House. Among other topics, the two leaders discussed Gaza and the need for Hamas to release all the hostages.

In this effort, we are guided by two principles: We stand with Israel and we stand for peace. Also at this meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump reaffirmed that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon. As the President announced, we are engaging in diplomacy right now to solve this matter. In the words of President Trump yesterday, “doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious.”

And that is my announcements.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS BRUCE: And it’s great to see all of you here. We will begin – I don’t know if it’ll ever change; it may someday – to Matt Lee.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) All right, thank you, Tammy. I got a couple that are extremely brief. One, can you confirm that the three Americans who were convicted in Congo in this coup have been repatriated? The Congolese say they’re back. I’m just wanting to know if you are able to say that they’re – they are back here.

MS BRUCE: I can tell you something about that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS BRUCE: We have – of course, as you know, as I like to remind people that are watching all around the world, the department has no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas. And we are aware – the United States Government is – of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo transferring into U.S. custody the U.S. citizens who were detained in connection with the events of May 19th, 2024, and who previously faced the death penalty before their sentences were commuted to life imprisonment.

Now, of course, we refer you to the U.S. Department of Justice in this regard for further information. And they are, of course – they have been transferred. They’re in our custody. And we also strongly condemn the armed attacks of May 19th and support the DRC authorities in holding those responsible appropriately accountable. At the same time, we seek consistent, compassionate, humane treatment and a fair legal process on behalf of those U.S. citizens. So —

QUESTION: Okay. Secondly, can you – the Russians are saying that there are going to be talks in Istanbul, these kind of embassy and personnel and logistics talks, in Istanbul on Thursday. Are you able to tell us anything about that?

And I’ve got one more, but it will also be brief.

MS BRUCE: I thought you said two.

QUESTION: Well, three. Sorry.

MS BRUCE: Ah, three. So – it’s twos —

QUESTION: But it’ll be very brief.

MS BRUCE: Yes, for Matt, two equals three.

QUESTION: And then I’ll keep my mouth shut after.

MS BRUCE: All right. Well, sure. On April 10th, U.S. and Russian delegations will meet for a second time in Istanbul to try to make progress on further stabilizing the operations of our bilateral missions. So that is happening in Istanbul. There are no political or security issues on the agenda, and Ukraine is not – absolutely not – on the agenda. These talks are solely focused on our embassy operations, not on normalizing a bilateral relationship overall, which can only happen, as we’ve noted, once there is peace between Russia and Ukraine.

QUESTION: Okay, great. Thank you. And then last one —

MS BRUCE: He seems like so – he wants to keep going. I’m answering his questions.

QUESTION: Can you —

MS BRUCE: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can you give us any clarity on the cuts, the latest cuts to – not including the Burma stuff, but the cuts to USAID and funding to the World Food Program that happened essentially over the weekend? Because I understand there may have been some changes to those cuts.

MS BRUCE: Well, yes. So let me get to those details because that is important. We have – one thing we can say because this is a large conversation and various different countries are involved – first of all, 85 percent of previously existing USAID programs with the World Food Program worldwide remain active and ongoing. So that’s 85 percent when we’re talking about the effort that the country has made and continues to make.

So it is inaccurate, as some have intimated, that USAID has defunded the World Food Program – that is not true – or that we’ve broadly backed away from our commitments to providing lifesaving food aid. We’ve said from the beginning that our commitment to foreign aid remains. It may look different than it has in the past, but in this case 85 percent of those USAID programs with the World Food Program worldwide remain active.

We have terminated a limited number of World Food – World Food Program programs based on specific country or program-level priorities. But what is the story here is that the largest group of World Food Program awards terminated were in Yemen and Afghanistan through an executive order that was issued based on concern that the funding was benefitting terrorist groups, including the Houthis and the Taliban. These concerns with UN funding have been documented and discussed for years, which is why USAID paused all food assistance in northern Yemen through WFP, specifically to mitigate any interference by the Houthis, and has intermittently suspended food assistance across Afghanistan to mitigate Taliban interference. Other awards were terminated because they provided cash-based assistance, which the administration is moving away from given concerns about misuse and lack of appropriate accountability for American taxpayers here at home, of course, and the accountability they deserve.

There were a few programs that were cut in other countries that were not meant to be cut that have been rolled back and put into place. So when – when and if that happens, that’s recognized, and that has also been the case with something as complicated as this framework. We do what is necessary to maintain the commitments that fit within the framework of keeping America safe, secure, as well as making sure that they apply the nature of our priorities and values as well.

QUESTION: Can you say what countries those were that you —

MS BRUCE: I can’t. I can get back to you on that. But it is just a – it’s just a few with – again, the majority of which are Yemen and Afghanistan with – certainly with the SIGAR report regarding Afghanistan and the Taliban, at least $11 million being siphoned or enriching the Taliban in the process of that food aid.

All right, taking questions – Andrea Mitchell. Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. You mentioned the Iran conversations between the President and the prime minister yesterday. Can you confirm what the Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said, which is that Steve Witkoff, the special envoy, will lead those talks and that they will be indirect – not direct, as President Trump said? Or is there some clarification you can give us as to how the State Department sees these talks being composed?

MS BRUCE: Well, I can’t confirm anything an Iranian authority is going to say. What I can tell is what the Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said, is that Mr. Witkoff, Special Envoy Witkoff, will be there. So he’ll be present.

And when it comes to the description of the event, I would refer you back to the President’s remarks. That’s who I rely on.

QUESTION: Can you define which – what is meant by direct talks?

MS BRUCE: I would —

QUESTION: Because the Iranians are insisting —

MS BRUCE: I’m —

QUESTION: — at the foreign minister level that they are indirect.

MS BRUCE: Sure. That’s nice for the Iranians. I would refer back to the President of the United States, President John – Donald John Trump.

QUESTION: And can I – I have one more subject.

MS BRUCE: Yes, of course.

QUESTION: Not four like —

MS BRUCE: You can also have more questions, absolutely.

QUESTION: The other thing I wanted to ask you about – colleges, universities around the country are saying that with little or no notice, they – to them or their students – there have been massive cancelations of student visas without explanations. In some cases, some of the students have said they are for reckless driving citations. These are not students who are involved in protests, not that that would necessarily justify it. But just can you clarify the way this – the way these are being canceled? Is there a process to determine – is there a threshold for determining why a student visa would be canceled? And what are the criteria?

MS BRUCE: Well, we’ve never gone into the details of the visa process. We don’t discuss individual visas because of the privacy issues involved. We don’t go into statistics or numbers; we don’t go into the rationale for what happens with individual visas. What we can tell you is that the department revokes visas every day in order to secure our borders and to keep our community safe, and we’ll continue to do so.

The criteria, as it is, is applied appropriately. And that’s the extent that – it’s – we – that’s what we’ve been dealing with right? And we’ve never been – and we’re not inclined to answer those specifics, but I think the American people know, as we’re seeing, that we take the border seriously. We take the visa process seriously. And the number of revocations I can say is dynamic, which is why we don’t give those numbers out. And again, we – we’re not going to give statistics, only because of always the continuing fluidity of the situation when it comes to visas and the reasons they are revoked, which is personal and private.

QUESTION: And just to follow it with just the last question on this general subject.

MS BRUCE: You’re beating Matt Lee when it comes to two being four now.

QUESTION: But the Secretary’s announcement, the announcement that came out the other day about the cancelation of passport holders from South Sudan, when South Sudan is in some considerable conflict right now between their leaders – there’s a great deal of turmoil and violence in that country. What is the reason – more broadly, not individual reasons – for canceling visas to passport holders from South Sudan when there is so much danger for anybody going back?

MS BRUCE: I have a few things for you on that. So enforcing our immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States. Every country must accept the return of its citizens in a timely manner when another country, including the United States, seeks to remove them. South Sudan’s Transitional Government has failed to fully respect this principle by not permitting the entry of an individual that they had confirmed and documented as a citizen. The United States Department of State has taken actions to revoke visas held by South Sudanese passport holders and restrict further issuance of visas to prevent entry into the United States by South Sudanese passport holders.

We will be prepared to review these actions when the South – when South Sudan is in full cooperation. And Secretary Rubio has said it is the responsibility of each nation to take back their citizens who are illegally present in the United States in a serious and expeditious manner. We are unwavering in our commitment to end illegal immigration and bolster America’s border security. So this is the – we understand also that the South Sudan has made a statement that they’ve agreed, finally, to accept the individual in question, and we are aware of that remark. And this is – they committed on April 8th to grant the individual permission to enter their country. And we look forward to the Government of South Sudan following through on that remark, and we will then be prepared to review, once again, these actions when South Sudan is in full cooperation.

All right. Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Thank you. You mentioned that some of the programs that were cut, the WFP programs, were not meant to be cut. Was that just to clarify from the programs that were cut over the weekend?

MS BRUCE: I’m sorry? It’s like —

QUESTION: The – you mentioned that there —

MS BRUCE: That there’s some that were rolled back, that were cut that shouldn’t have been. Yes. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Were those cut over the weekend? Or was that from before?

MS BRUCE: I don’t have that detail for you. But I’m sure we can get it, because I had many details, but that’s one that I don’t have. But I’ll get it for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS BRUCE: Sure.

QUESTION: And then the Saudi foreign minister is visiting the United States. Will Secretary Rubio meet with him? And if so, what does he hope to achieve from —

MS BRUCE: Yes, in fact, he will be. He’ll be meeting with him tomorrow.

QUESTION: And what does he hope to achieve from that meeting?

MS BRUCE: Oh, I’m not going to get ahead of the Secretary of State. But we look forward to seeing him tomorrow.

All right. Yes.

QUESTION: Hi, Tammy.

MS BRUCE: Hi.

QUESTION: Getting back to Iran, part of the reason that the administration cited in 2018, the first Trump Administration, from withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal was that it wasn’t comprehensive enough. It didn’t cover militias; it didn’t cover the missile program and a bunch of other of Iran’s activities. Is the expectation that this new agreement would have to cover that?

MS BRUCE: Well, this is a meeting that’s happening, right, on Saturday. There’s a meeting. There’s no negotiations, right? This is a dynamic where the President has made very clear, and certainly the Secretary has made very clear, that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. And it’s just – that I think is the focus right now, the nature of what’s happened and Iran’s current situation.

I think the President’s remarks yesterday speak for themselves that – and he’s committed to diplomacy. He’s spoken about wanting to have a deal with Iran to get this done, and now it’s up to Iran. And if they don’t want to, it will be very, very bad for them. So those are the two, I think, clear options here.

QUESTION: Just as an initial sort of feel-out as to whether to progress to negotiations?

MS BRUCE: I think it’s touching base – yes, indeed. Again, it’s not a negotiation. It’s a meeting, and that’s what the commitment is.

QUESTION: And finally, you’d mentioned that Steve Witkoff is going.

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: Is he leading the delegation on it?

MS BRUCE: I can’t speak to that, but he will be there.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thanks. Can I just follow up from Rich, where you’re saying that it’s a meeting rather than a negotiation?

MS BRUCE: Correct.

QUESTION: The Iranian Government has said that it’s a matter of – they want sanctions relief. Is that something that the United States is prepared to discuss either at this meeting or in the future?

MS BRUCE: Well, again, I’m not going to get ahead of any kind of conversation or process, diplomatic considerations. Certainly, I can’t get ahead of a negotiation because this isn’t one, so that’s not something I can speak to.

QUESTION: In terms of the goal, I know that you said that not – prohibiting Iran from having a nuclear weapon. But in terms of what – how that’s achieved, I mean, there’s been some talk in the administration. Is this complete dismantlement of the nuclear program? Or is it just verification that it’s not going to go for – nuclear for military ends? Is there an end goal that the administration has when it comes to that, whether it’s a complete dismantlement?

MS BRUCE: I – again, I can’t speak to their considerations, the contemplations they have, the discussions they have. We do know that there is something very, very clear and distinct that is on the table that needs to be accomplished, and they’re certainly – see now, because I have so many opinions, and you’re waiting. Shaun is waiting for me to kind of – we all have opinions, but what I can tell you is that the very specific thing that needs to be accomplished, which would make the world a much safer place, is to make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, that there is no room around that fact, and that is something worthy of focusing on at this moment.

Yes, Nadia.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. I have two questions.

MS BRUCE: Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: On the Iran —

MS BRUCE: No, you have seven. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: No, no, two.

MS BRUCE: All right.

QUESTION: Only two, I promise you. On the Iran talks, is this meeting primarily focusing on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or are they going to discuss Iran’s support for proxies in the region, considering there were reports that Iran stopped supporting the Houthis – alert, not supporting the Houthis? That’s my first question.

MS BRUCE: Right. Again, this is not a negotiation. There aren’t things being negotiated in that regard. This has been described to me as something that is a matter of determining what’s possible in the conversations. It’s a touchback, and that’s the extent of what will be happening.

QUESTION: I see.

MS BRUCE: Yeah. Yes.

QUESTION: My second question. I have two.

MS BRUCE: Yes. Oh, the second, the second. That’s right.

QUESTION: Don’t forget.

MS BRUCE: I’m sorry. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. That’s okay.

MS BRUCE: Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Second question on Gaza actually. The situation is horrific. There is no water, there is no electricity, there is no food for almost one month. This is a gross violation of international humanitarian law, as you know. What is the United States doing to alleviate the suffering of civilians in Gaza? And second, since you talked about the meeting between Netanyahu and the Secretary, any prospect of a ceasefire that was discussed yesterday?

MS BRUCE: Our efforts to bring back the ceasefire that we were happy to have at the beginning of this, before Hamas turned its back on the ceasefire, is something that the administration – that the President and Secretary Rubio have said we would want back, that that is – there is nothing that is cut off in the sense of where we go from here. It is clear. And the effort – as we are asked every briefing, which is appropriate because of the nature of the issue – is none of us – we are engaging in this to stop the suffering. When there is a resumption of a conflict, and this – the nature of this conflict with so many hostages also still being held – it, of course, disrupts the humanitarian aid. And that is something that concerns all of us and that we seek to change.

There is one group that has broken ceasefires, that continues for generations to move the suffering, and that is Hamas. There is just – it’s a remarkable dynamic, where you have multiple players here that are working and constantly making an effort to stop the carnage and the suffering and to stop the conflict on the ground so that humanitarian aid can flow, and Hamas seems to want nothing to do with that. They continue to go back to creating a framework of victims constantly.

So I would say that obviously our effort is to get a ceasefire on the ground again, specifically so we can get aid into the area, specifically so that we can discuss what the region understands, which is the need for a new way to move us out of this horrible cycle. And obviously that’s what we’ve been dealing with for generations. President Trump is determined to end it once and for all, as is Secretary Rubio. They have one term, and this is why things have to move quickly. It never stops. Their efforts in the Middle East and on Gaza never stop. And that’s what we hope for, and the results hopefully, obviously is for peace on the ground, for humanitarian aid, and for Gazans and everyone in the region to have a future to look forward to that they can trust.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Tammy. Two more questions here on Ukraine, if I may.

MS BRUCE: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can you please also confirm that there will be U.S.-Ukraine dialogue, negotiations this week in Washington? Any color you can offer? Who is going to be involved? Will they be in this building as well?

MS BRUCE: I can’t speak to any conversation or discussion about Russia-Ukraine here.

QUESTION: All right. Thank you. On Chinese involvement in Ukraine-Russia war, President Zelenskyy today posted a video suggesting that they captured two of Chinese nationals fighting in Ukraine on behalf of Russia. Does the Secretary have any comment on that? And does it change your view, your position on how to help Ukraine beef up Ukraine’s hand —

MS BRUCE: Yeah.

QUESTION: — now that they’ve been – we know they’re fighting against not but one superpower but —

MS BRUCE: It’s disturbing. It’s disturbing with North Korea participating. It’s disturbing with the Chinese soldiers having been captured. We’re aware of those reports, that Ukraine captured two Chinese citizens fighting on behalf of Russia in Ukraine. China is a major enabler of Russia in the war in Ukraine. China provides nearly 80 percent of the dual-use items Russia needs to sustain the war. Eighty percent comes from China. As President Trump has said, continued cooperation between these two nuclear powers will only further contribute to global instability and make the United States and other countries less safe, less secure, and less prosperous. I think that’s an understatement.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? The Secretary spoke to us during the travel. He said that he gave some time to Russia to clear up its position in terms of whether or not they are serious about the peace talks.

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: Do the events of this weekend, them targeting Zelenskyy’s hometown and other attacks, do they – do those events contribute to the Secretary’s position on that?

MS BRUCE: Well, we – I know he loves talking to you guys on the trips – we were at NATO together – and he appreciates that. And he had a press conference at the end of NATO where he did go into very specifics when he was asked about the timeline, is that we would know within a matter of weeks if Russia was serious about peace. He said not months, not a year, but a matter of weeks, he said, we would know. And I think that this goes to the argument that they’ve made even in the beginning of the talks, some of the summits with Russia, and the first summit was – as the Secretary noted – was to determine if they were serious. And so this – as I’ve mentioned, right, this is a – these are active men with a term in which to get this done. And we – and plus the lives affected don’t – we don’t have time. Every day, every week that goes by affects the quality of people’s lives, and some people who are alive now will not be alive tomorrow.

So it is – it is held with urgency, it will be a matter of weeks, and you – of course you mention the attack on Kryvyi Rih, which is the – I guess the hometown of President Zelenskyy. It is – was a Russian Federation ballistic missile strike in a residential neighborhood of that town. It is – further underscores President Trump’s urgent call for peace. And he’s affected by this. It’s long time to stop the death and the destruction and end this war, just as we know President Trump has been committed to finding and demanding the return of the missing or stolen Ukrainian children from Russia. So this is top of the mind for President Trump and for Secretary Rubio.

Yes, here.

QUESTION: Thanks, Tammy. Continuing on the two-question trend. First of all, an American teenager was shot and killed and two others were shot in the West Bank. Has the U.S. called on the Israeli Government to investigate their killings?

MS BRUCE: We are certainly aware of that dynamic. We’re – we send condolences to the families involved. These were teenagers. There is an investigation that is going on. We’re aware of the reports from the IDF that this was a counterterrorism act. We need to learn more about the nature of what happened on the ground, but we’re aware of that, yes.

QUESTION: And then on the contract terminations —

QUESTION: May I follow up on —

QUESTION: — this weekend, who signed off on those? Was it the Secretary?

MS BRUCE: I’m sorry, the contract –

QUESTION: On the foreign aid contract terminations.

MS BRUCE: Oh, the foreign aid, yes.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary himself still canceling those contracts, or has that been delegated elsewhere?

MS BRUCE: We know, of course, of his full involvement in the beginning. We know that the review had officially ended. We also know of his schedule, and I’ve asked specifically from his office as well to get me that information, because you and some others have also been asking now about the nature of how this is transpiring. My goal is to get a fuller view now that that – that review has ended, and we have bureaus here addressing issues regarding foreign aid, et cetera. And I think that we have – I think it’s time now for a fuller understanding of that, and that’s part of that, and so we’ll get that back to you. But expect my goal is to have a more comprehensive answer regarding now – the process now on the ground for us.

All right.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on Jennifer’s question?

MS BRUCE: Yes, certainly, Said.

QUESTION: Thank you very kindly. Now, when Shireen Abu Akleh was killed by the Israelis a couple years ago, the American security coordinator was involved in investigating, and they drew a conclusion. My question to you is twofold on this issue, regarding the boy. So first of all, is the security – the American security coordinator for the West Bank, is he involved with this thing? Is he going to follow up? And my second question: Has there been any calls to the family from this building or from the U.S. ambassadors and so on to learn the circumstances of what happened?

MS BRUCE: Well, again, this is – there’s things on the ground. We don’t have the complete picture of what was going on on the ground. I know that we’re aware of the reports. We certainly always are engaged in the nature of what’s happening with American citizens, and that’s the case here, and that’s the extent of what I’m going to say.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: On India?

MS BRUCE: Right there in the – yes, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, appreciate it. Two questions; I’ll ask them back to back. Number one: UN Secretary-General António Guterres announced earlier today that he would not participate, the UN would not participate, in the resumption of IDF humanitarian aid delivery into Gaza, because he felt the parameters were not sufficient, not appropriate. Would the State Department consider or planning even to step in to aid the IDF in humanitarian aid delivery given the importance that the State Department is placing on that particular area?

And the second question is: What does the State Department view as a positive role for Türkiye in Syria?

MS BRUCE: Well, first of all, the reason there’s aid issues and movement issues in Gaza is because of the resumption of the conflict. So I – we – I know we work through our partners on the ground. The fact is, is that if it was safe to move aid through Gaza, it would – it would move. And at this point that’s clearly an assessment that it hasn’t been safe. So I’m not going to speak about or presume to talk about what the State Department would do. Those are the decisions of the Secretary and of the President, of the highest levels of this government, about how to move through that framework. So that’s not a – something that I’ll speculate on.

And your second question was?

QUESTION: What does the State Department view as a positive role for Türkiye in Syria given the President’s reaffirmation of his affinity to President Erdogan?

MS BRUCE: Well, there – there – yes, I – I think I – I know a great deal, I think as we all do, about Secretary Marco Rubio, but I’m not going to presume that I know how to speak for him when it comes to the notion of diplomatic decisions or maneuverings when it comes to the nature of what’s going to be best for a region like that. Türkiye is certainly an ally and a friend, but that is a conversation that belongs between leaders.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Türkiye?

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Gaza?

MS BRUCE: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Please?

MS BRUCE: Yes, sir, go ahead.

QUESTION: I – Benjamin Netanyahu offered a video statement in which he outlined the terms that he would – that Israel would accept for an agreement with Iran. He said it had to be a Libya-style agreement that – where we would go in, quote, “blow up the facilities, dismantle… the equipment, under American supervision and American execution.” Is that a position that Secretary Rubio agrees with? Is it a precondition by Israel that the U.S. is willing to accept?

MS BRUCE: I can’t discuss that because I wasn’t in that room. I certainly don’t speak for Israel or for the prime minister and his remarks about what’s important to him. So I would leave that to the nature of conversations at that level; certainly not something for me to comment on here.

QUESTION: When the President says that he would rather resolve this through diplomacy rather than the alternative —

MS BRUCE: Sure.

QUESTION: — can you just spell out what is the alternative? Is it a U.S. military strike on Iran?

MS BRUCE: Well, I guess that’s something that everyone is supposed to consider, right? The President has made himself very clear about what he prefers, and that’s diplomacy and making deals. And he’s been very successful at that. The world, though, as we’ve seen of course, seems to devolve into violence, and that is something that he clearly has – ending that violence and changing that trajectory is something that President Trump has made a hallmark of his – this last term of his, and it is a remarkable commitment.

So I think that speculating or hypothesizing in a world where it’s dangerous when it comes to real life and what’s happening is not certainly something that any of us should do, but it’s, I think, an important reminder that President Trump not only talks about diplomacy and what he prefers, but he acts on it as well.

QUESTION: Tammy?

MS BRUCE: All right. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. Going back to Iran, you said that this is not a negotiation, but it’s talks. Can you tell us, what are you going to talk about with Iran? Are you going to set up a stage or are you going to set up a timeline or —

MS BRUCE: Well, it’s —

QUESTION: Are you going to negotiate with Iran?

MS BRUCE: The Omanis are hosting; Special Envoy Witkoff will be there. I do not know about the environment and how it will be arranged. I don’t. It’s a meeting, and how the participants decide on how to frame that meeting is completely up to them.

QUESTION: And can I ask a question on Syria? There is a lot of concerns about the Syrian Government approach towards the Kurdish and Druze and other minority rights. Do you have any sorts of pressure on the Syrian Government to behave according to international law and to take care about the minority groups?

MS BRUCE: I know that – and we’ve spoken about this here before – is that we expect the Syrian Government to abide by human rights law, to abide by the common laws of what is a decent government, the nature of the choices we make. So that’s not unusual. And we – they’ve had a recent government formation or advisory formation, which seemed to involve additional groups in Syria, but there’s much more that have to be done that has not been done, and we’re waiting to see them take more action. So obviously there is expectations that have yet to be met, and so we’re waiting to see what they’re doing.

When it comes to pressure, the pressure really is about whether or not a nation wants to be within and accepted within other nation-states and within the world. I think that’s certainly an indication here that’s possible or not possible.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: Thank you. You have been involved in helping start Kurdistan oil exports, and that is much appreciated, but now there is a new problem: The oil-exporting companies, including U.S. companies, say that Iraq is changing the contract unilaterally, and exports can’t resume until this is resolved. Are you concerned about this problem? Are you involved in trying to fix it?

MS BRUCE: That we’ll have to take back when it comes to the details, all right? So that’s Iraq and the oil, right? Let’s get back to him on that.

QUESTION: Tammy?

MS BRUCE: All right. Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Tammy. Just circling back to those latest cuts in foreign aid, you noted concerns about interference in Afghanistan and Yemen, but it was funding that the department initially allowed to continue because it was deemed to be lifesaving, and there are other places, of course, where interference is still a concern that are still benefiting from USAID dollars. So is this a amendment or a change to the State Department’s initial promise to continue lifesaving aid, or should we expect other cuts where interference is a concern?

MS BRUCE: Well, waivers were issued. We know that, of course, but this was in the process of a review that was expected to take 90 days. It took less time. And in the process of the review, some things you want to have continue as you’re reviewing them, as you’re making a determination about whether or not it’s – where the money is going, if it does meet your criteria to continue, and that’s what happened. There are some entities that got waivers that then the grants or the funding were cut because we went through the review and found that they should be cut.

So this is also something that had to happen because there had been who knows – I don’t know – years, decades of no one auditing, no one checking, no one really knowing, and it just grew and grew and grew. So this process of auditing and knowing where your money is being spent, most of us do this personally, right? We keep an eye on the bank account. We make a note of what’s coming up and what the checks are that are coming in, and we spend accordingly. So we are in a constant, regular audit. That will always be the case now.

So if you’ve got a dynamic where someone is passed through and is receiving the aid and is meeting their obligations, that’s great. It doesn’t mean we’re going to look back in 25 years to see if they’re still okay. This has to be a regular process with this kind of work that has been, yes, disruptive and difficult, but it has been important so that we can continue to do that work.

So I hope that answers your question because, yes, there is aid that is going on now has received waivers. Some of it over time, it may be increased, it may be cut. It depends on the goals of the United States, our foreign policy goals, and the nature of how our money is being spent on the ground.

All the way in the back, sir. White shirt with the little blue tie there.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. I would like to know – Colombia has been at the center of diplomatic tension with the United States. At the beginning of this administration, we saw President Petro say that he wasn’t going to accept these deportation flights, and then he changed his mind, as President Trump said, in 13 minutes.

MS BRUCE: Good.

QUESTION: Now he’s saying that – well, Secretary Noem said that President Petro told her he was a friend of the cartels and that members of the Tren de Aragua need a lot of love. Now President Petro says that is not true. What is the current state of that relationship between U.S. and Colombia after those two episodes? Thank you.

MS BRUCE: Well, I would refer you to the White House when it comes to the nature of a relationship, but other than that, I think we’re going to – I’m going to – we can bring that back when it comes to if there’s been any actual response to those kinds of statements. But we’ll get back to you. But that’s what I have there.

Yes, sir. On the end here, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. This morning, as you’re aware, President Trump and South Korea’s Acting President Han had a first phone call, and then they discussed South Korea’s payment for hosting U.S. Forces Korea. And so do you see any possibility that the State Department somehow engage in a renegotiation of the cost-sharing deal that was actually signed last year? That was my first question.

MS BRUCE: Well, let me answer that because it’ll be a short answer. So I can’t answer that, right? So I won’t be discussing the nature of diplomatic conversations or anything of that nature or what choices we might make, either as – certainly as a government, but certainly not as the State Department.

Second question?

QUESTION: And the second question is: South Korea, as you’re aware, still facing a period of leadership vacuum after President Yoon’s removed from office. So do you think that that period of a leadership vacuum will have some negative impact on the alliance between South Korea and the United States? Do you have any concern about it?

MS BRUCE: I know that our relationship with South Korea is strong, and I know that as an ally that we are expecting them to follow certain rules and norms. And we, of course, enjoy their allyship and we enjoy that relationship.

So all right, are we – are we kind of – we’re getting here now? All right.

QUESTION: Yes, please.

QUESTION: On India?

MS BRUCE: All right. Young lady in the back. Maroon – yes, go ahead. Let me just say I’ve been told I tend to favor my right, which is true politically. (Laughter.) I can’t deny that. So my goal – I’ve been trying to think – and I’m left-handed, funny enough, not that you could tell. (Laughter.) Trying to move to this degree. But then also I know you’re in the back but you’re in this room, and straight down here I got you earlier, and yes.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Can you confirm that as President said, these talks – Iran talks – are direct? Because we heard from Iranian side immediately after that they are indirect. Do you find that concerning?

MS BRUCE: You’re copying Andrea Mitchell.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MS BRUCE: Well, I will again refer you simply back to the President’s remarks. And that is – my north star is President Donald Trump, not Iranian officials.

All right, and that’s going to be it today. Thank you, everybody. I’ll see you on Thursday. We’ll see you again on Thursday this week. Thank you very much.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:48 p.m.)

# # #