Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby
PRESS SECRETARY JOHN F. KIRBY: Hello. Sorry I'm a little late today. See, I'm not really sorry.
Q: No, you're not. And you're late most of the (inaudible).
MR. KIRBY: Okay, maybe like by four or five minutes, Meghan. It's not like I'm chronically late.
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: Yes. In the Navy, I was brought up to believe if you are on time, you're actually late.
Okay. Got a few things at the top, and then we'll get right at it. Just make sure I've got this right.
Okay, a quick update on COVID vaccine distribution support.
Yesterday, COVID community vaccination centers in Chicago, Illinois and
Greensboro, North Carolina began full operations. We also achieved two
milestones yesterday: the first day with over 50,000 shots provided by
DOD-supported community vaccination centers, and overall, more than
500,000 shots given at the 17 supported sites.
I think today, you may have seen Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen
Hicks issued a memorandum to commanders of the combatant commands,
defense agency and DOD field activity directors on the governance
structure for deputy-secretary-managed processes. The memorandum
describes formal mechanisms that the deputy secretary will use to assist
the secretary in advancing his priorities; specifically, Deputy
Secretary of Defense Hicks is establishing a new governance body, the
Deputy's Workforce Council, to advance the priorities laid out last week
in Secretary Austin's message to the force.
The council will -- examining -- work to create lasting institutional
change around the department's policies and processes on critical
matters. These include sexual assault prevention and response,
countering extremism, transgender issues, diversity, equity and
inclusion, workforce development and talent management, professional
military education, and leveraging technology in support of workforce
goals. And we're going to be posting that establishment memo to
defense.gov later today, if it isn't already up.
And finally, I'd like to briefly address some recent comments made by
the host of a popular cable show about who serves in the military, and
what that service means. I want to be very clear right up front that
the diversity of our military is one of our greatest strengths. I've
seen it for myself in long months at sea and in the combat waged by our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've seen it up on Capitol Hill just
this past month, and I see it every day here right at the Pentagon. One
of the best decisions I ever made was becoming a Navy spouse myself;
married to a terrific young naval officer who gave birth to our first
child, and then went right back to work doing civil engineering for an
airbase in Jacksonville.
We are better and more effective not only when we represent the
American people -- all the American people -- but also, when we have the
moral courage to include other perspectives and ideas into our
decision-making; perspectives that, as the secretary himself noted
Monday, are based on lived experience. It's that experience, and the
professionalism and commitment of our people, that has always been our
decisive advantage.
A major but specific contributor to that advantage are the women who
serve, civilian and military alike, and today, they serve in just about
every skill set we put to sea and in the field. They're flying fighter
jets and commanding warships. They're leading troops on the ground.
They're making a difference in everything we do because of what they
bring to the effort.
To be sure, we still have a lot of work to do to make our military
more inclusive, more respectful of everyone, especially women. We're
proud that two great leaders like Generals Van Ovost and Richardson have
been nominated to combatant command, but we recognize the lack of
female leadership across the senior ranks. We pledge to do better and
we will.
What we absolutely won't do is take personnel advice from a talk show
host or the Chinese military. Now maybe those folks feel like they
have something to prove; that's on them. We know we're the greatest
military in the world today, and even for all the things we need to
improve, we know exactly why that's so.
With that, I'll take your questions. Go ahead, Barbara.
Q: On this subject, a number of follow-ups.
Is -- you haven't mentioned Tucker Carlson by name and I am curious why.
MR. KIRBY: I think you know who we're talking about. Yes, we're referring to what Mr. Carlson said in his monologue.
Q: Thank you.
My second question -- two additional questions. Does the secretary have a reaction to this?
And third, it's my understanding the Armed Forces Network does carry
Tucker Carlson's show on your military broadcast distribution network.
Will you -- there is some social media discussion that is -- is opposed
to the continuing carrying of that show by the Pentagon. Will you
continue to carry his show?
MR. KIRBY: The secretary certainly shares the revulsion of so many
others to what Mr. Carlson said in his opening statement. And, yes,
Tucker Carlson's show, as well as a lot of other programming, airs on
Armed Forces Network. As I think you know, by instruction, we are
required to broadcast and to make available for men and women and their
families overseas the same type of content -- news, information, and
sports content -- that their fellow citizens can get, so his show is
aired on AFN.
Q. Thank you.
Yeah, Joe.
Q: On a different subject, following the latest decision made by the
administration in regards to supporting the Saudi-led coalition in
Yemen, I was wondering if you could provide us with the current
assessment of the U.S. CT operations inside Yemen.
MR. KIRBY: No, I'm not going to do that, Joe. I'm not going to get
into talking about specific operations here. You know I won't do that.
And we have a CT mission in Yemen that -- that remains important and
critical. And -- and it's still being implemented and executed by U.S.
Central Command. But I won't speak about the details of that.
Q: Are you able to provide us with the number of U.S. special forces inside Yemen?
MR. KIRBY: I'll have to see -- I don't know if that number's
available. I'll have to take the question and get back to you. I don't
-- I don't know if I have that.
Q: Another quick question. Today King Abdullah of Jordan denied
permission for the Israeli prime minister to fly over Jordan on his
route to UAE. Jordan is close ally to the United States, as Israeli.
Are you concerned about the tensions between Israel and Jordan right
now?
MR. KIRBY: Those are issues for those two countries to -- to speak
to and to address, Joe, and I'd think I'd leave it to the leaders of
both those countries to talk about that.
Q: Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Idrees?
Q: Hey, John, if I could just change the topic quickly to the
Capitol and National Guard, when was the last time the secretary spoke
with the Capitol Police chief? And has he conveyed to them, you know,
what the Pentagon has said repeatedly, that the National Guard
shouldn't, sort of, be a tool of first choice?
Because I think there's an increasing perception that the Capitol
Police, you know, are very good at making requests, maybe not as good as
making internal changes after January 6th.
MR. KIRBY: I think -- I've talked about this before. I mean,
obviously the secretary has said and has continued to say publicly and
privately that he doesn't want our National Guard troops up on Capitol
Hill one day longer than they need to be.
I don't think anybody wants to see this become an enduring mission.
And by enduring I mean a forever mission. At the same time, he
recognizes that there is a legitimate need for them. We talked about
that yesterday, a valid requirement because of some capability gaps and
capacity shortages right now that the Capitol Police are experiencing,
as they adjust to a new post-January 6th environment.
And he looked at the request, determined it was valid, and we're
going to source it. But, of course, I don't think it's anybody's
intention that this become some sort of long-term enduring mission for
the National Guard here in the Capitol Region.
And I would just, lastly, because I don't think I answered your first
question, he has certainly made those concerns well known to leaders
here in the Pentagon.
Tara?
Q: Thanks. To follow up on Idrees' question on sourcing for the
2,300. A number of units that I've spoken to have said they are coming
home, they are not extending their mission at the Capitol for various
reasons, whether it's they’re exhausted by the COVID response or they --
you know, natural disasters.
So when you say we're going to source it, can you update us on
options that the Defense Department is considering, including the
potential for involuntary activation?
MR. KIRBY: I'm going to point you to specifics, to the National
Guard Bureau, they are really the ones that will be much better able to
answer that than I will. But as I said yesterday, and it's my
understanding that there will be a bit of a transition here between the
Guardsmen that are supporting this current mission, which, as you know,
ends tomorrow, and then the incoming mission, which extends out until
May.
So we expect a certain number of Guardsmen that are on the mission
now will stay in place to help with that transition, that turnover. We
also expect that some, and I don't know the number, I'll point you to
the National Guard, but some Guardsmen have expressed an interest in
volunteering to stay for the whole extension.
And then lastly, it's our understanding that for the sourcing of the
new requirement, the extension, will be in -- will be tasked out, will
be tasked to the governors to support. And so we'll be looking at whole
units coming in. It won't be done in the same voluntary fashion that
the current mission is being assigned.
And that's for a couple of reasons. One, it helps protect these
Guardsmen with their employment benefits. And, two, it gives a greater
sense of command-and-control because they'll be coming as whole units.
And so it will give the Guard a better ability to define the
capabilities that the units have and that they'll come in complete with
their command-and-control already built in as units. That's my
understanding.
But as for the details of that, how fast, from what states, and what
that transition between the current mission and the follow-on mission,
I'd point you to the National Guard.
Q: Just as a quick follow-up, is there any concern in the building
that by meeting the request through involuntary activations, that
there'll be this perception of forcing troops to stay at the Capitol?
Again, following on the -- the line of questioning I had yesterday
about, like, the optics of having service members come guard the Capitol
and, you know, protect it instead of having it be open to all -- all of
America who, you know, it used to be the people's house, could go in
and -- it just seems like it, you know, there's been a lot of -- just
there's been a lot of criticism that it's becoming more of a fortress
rather than the open Capitol...
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: Nobody wants to see it become or be seen as a fortress.
As I said, the secretary's made clear, he doesn't want Guardsmen up
there one day longer than required. Again, I think the decision for the
involuntary activation makes sense on a couple of different levels, and
that gets us to May, and there's not talk that I'm aware of or no
speculation that we're -- that we're going to be looking at missions
beyond May.
But as the -- as for your question about -- about the optics, again,
this is -- this is a valid requirement that was analyzed here at the
Pentagon, and the secretary's comfortable that -- that it's worth
supporting, okay?
Yeah?
Q: Thanks, John. Can you address the significance of the
secretary's first foreign visit, and what he hopes to achieve? And what
can you tell us about when he intends to visit the Middle East, and
whether there are any plans that are being worked out towards that?
MR. KIRBY: I don't have any additional travel to speak to today. I
mentioned -- I talked about this yesterday, so I'd point you back to the
transcript from yesterday. But in essence, the secretary's very
pleased to be able to make his first trip overseas, and to do so with
the secretary of state, and to the Indo-Pacific region, which is such a
critical part of the world.
And the main thrust of the trip is really to revitalize and to -- and
to show our support to our alliances and partnerships over there,
specifically our alliance with Japan and with South Korea, those are the
two big stops there for -- for both Cabinet officials.
Q: But for the Middle East, are there any plans...
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: As I said, I don't have any travel beyond what we're doing next week, to speak to.
Q: Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
Abraham?
Q: Thanks, John. After the Guard presence and granting of that
request from the Capitol Police, did Secretary Austin put any strings
attached to -- to this Guard force to assure that there will be a
transition to no more Guard after May 23rd, or did he just give a blank
slate?
MR. KIRBY: You saw the -- you saw the -- the authorization that --
that he signed and it makes clear what the expectations are for
authorities, for these -- this additional extension, for these Guardsmen
during this initial extension. And as I said, he doesn't want the
Guard to be considered an enduring solution here, and he doesn't want
them to spend any more time up on Capitol Hill than what's required. He
believes that this is a valid requirement, and I won't -- I won't
speculate beyond that.
Mike?
(CROSSTALK)
Q: The secretary's confident, then, that there -- that after May 23rd, he won't have to re-up again?
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: I won't speculate beyond -- beyond this extension. I
appreciate you want to get us into hypotheticals beyond that, and I'm
just not going to do that. I mean, it is -- it is clearly not a mission
that we want to see the Guard own forever, but there's a valid
requirement, the secretary determined that, and so we're going to fill
this extension request, and that's what our focus is on right now.
Mike?
Q: I want to go back to the Tucker Carlson incident. You and the
secretary are both political appointees, so you're held to a different
status. But there are also -- there have also been a number of general
officers who've gone onto social media to directly criticize/attack
Tucker Carlson by name for -- for the piece that they didn't like. Is
that sort of a proper behavior for serving officers to -- to get that
sort of deep in the weeds? And is that some sort of new (CROSSTALK) --
MR. KIRBY: If you're asking -- if you're asking, does the secretary
have concerns about the fact that active-duty leaders are also
expressing their revulsion to these ridiculous comments, no, he doesn't
have concerns about the -- their -- their willingness to do that.
Q: Okay.
MR. KIRBY: Let's see, on the phone, Bryan Bender?
Q: Thanks, John. Different topic: I'm wondering if you have any
update on the status of the department's position on Colin Kahl and his
nomination to be the policy chief, now that it looks like all the
Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee are a no vote, and
it's, obviously, seriously in doubt whether he can get enough support.
MR. KIRBY: Bryan, as -- as we -- I said the other day, the -- the
secretary fully stands by the nomination of Dr. Kahl to be the
undersecretary of defense for policy. He's exactly the right person to
-- to head up that effort here at the Pentagon with vast and significant
experience in the field of policymaking, and he looks forward to
working with the -- the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate
writ large in the confirmation process, and very much looks forward to
-- to a successful vote, and to getting Dr. Kahl in the building.
Jeff Schogol?
Q: Thank you very much. Does Tucker Carlson owe every woman in the military an apology?
MR. KIRBY: I'll let Mr. Carlson figure that out for himself, Jeff. I
think I've made our position quite clear here at the Pentagon.
Paul Shinkman?
Q: Yeah, hi, John. The Reagan Institute issued a call yesterday
saying that public trust and confidence in the military is slipping. It
-- it's still high, but over a two-year period, it's pretty steadily
trending downward. How troubling are the result of this poll? Do you
believe it has anything to do with the fact that the military has been
thrust into the political fray in recent months? And is there anything
that the military is doing to reverse this trend by their -- because of
this poll or in general?
MR. KIRBY: Well, we're still working our way through the survey,
Paul, and I addressed this a little bit yesterday. I -- I would note
that still, the United States military is the most trusted institution
in -- in America right now, and we're always mindful of the need to earn
and to deserve the trust and confidence of -- of the American people.
As to why the numbers are the way they are, I would point you to the
-- the -- to the Reagan Institute, who -- who funded and -- and put
forth this survey. Our focus here is on making sure that we continue to
defend the American people against threats to their security, and that
-- that we do so in a responsible, prudent, measured, deliberate and --
and effective way, and -- and that's -- and I -- and -- and that's
really where the locus of our energy is. Clearly, we want to make sure
that as we do all that, that we retain the -- the trust and confidence
of the -- of the American people. But again, I'd -- I'd have -- I'd
have the agency issuing the survey speak to, you know, the -- the data
and how they -- and how they -- how they arrived at that data.
Anything here in the room?
Q: Yeah, John, just --
MR. KIRBY: Yeah?
Q: Just -- just for clarification, that's -- for the COVID shots,
there were 50K in one day, and 500,000 given, just less than a month
that they've -- that this effort has established and ramped up, correct?
MR. KIRBY: Yes.
Q: What do you anticipate the number of shots in arms is going to be in another month?
MR. KIRBY: I -- I -- I couldn't tell you, Jim. I -- I don't -- I
don't have a -- a projection of what that's going to look like.
Q: You're going to get more teams out though, right?
MR. KIRBY: Well, that -- it -- it's -- we are certainly prepared to
do that. You've seen that the secretary's authorized, I think, 35 total
teams. There are 17 in action right now. We don't want to go faster
than FEMA and local communities can support. So the idea of authorizing
them in advance is to make sure that they're prepared, they're trained,
they're ready to go. Their existing commands are -- are being made
ready for their departure and for backfilling their capabilities so that
readiness at our MTFs is not -- our military treatment facilities -- is
not adversely affected, so -- affected. So all that's a part of the
calculus. I -- I couldn't predict what the number of teams are -- on
the ground is going to be next week or the week after. We will -- we
can only go, and should only go as fast as FEMA and local communities
will allow us to do that. So that's why it's impossible for me to
extrapolate from this data what it's going to look like in a -- in a
couple of weeks. So we'll just -- we'll just see. The -- the -- the
secretary's been very clear that we're going to lean in on this, and
we're going to do as much as we can to support these FEMA-led efforts
around the country to -- to get vaccines in arms.
Q: Okay.
MR. KIRBY: Yup. Sylvie?
Q: Hello. I have a question. I would like to go back, actually, to
China. Some Democrat senators and representatives have said that it
would be a good idea for U.S. to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law
of the Sea. I wanted to know if -- also, the position of the secretary.
MR. KIRBY: It -- if -- is what the position of the secretary, Sylvie?
Q: That it -- it should be -- it should be good -- it would be good to ratify this convention, U.N. convention.
MR. KIRBY: It's -- we -- we continue to support the Law of the Sea
Convention, and -- and we recognize the Senate's role in -- in ratifying
that, and continue to be supportive of -- of a frank and candid
discussion with legislators about -- about the -- what the Law of the --
the Sea affords us, and I think I'd leave it at that for right now.
Q: You don't think it would help you in your efforts for a free --
free Pacific to, you know, to fight for the -- this principle?
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: We essentially -- we essentially subscribe to the -- the Conventions of the Law the Sea as it is in practice.
Q: Okay.
MR. KIRBY: Stephen Losey?
Q: You answered my question, thank you very much.
MR. KIRBY: Okay. Wafaa.
Q: Yes, thank you, my question was answered. Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Okay. (Caitlin Kenney.
Q: Hello. Has Secretary Austin, Deputy Secretary Hicks provided any
recommendations to the president about who he should look for, for any
-- look at for any of the present military service secretaries? And
also, are they being consulted on this matter?
MR. KIRBY: I won't get ahead of the decision-making process,
Caitlin, as you know, that it's the president's prerogative as
commander-in-chief to nominate individuals for service secretaries. And
that process continues. I certainly don't have an update on it.
Everybody recognizes the importance of those jobs and how significant
they are. And I think it's important to the secretary to make sure that
the recommendations he is making to the president, that he is making
the best recommendations he can for the best possible talent to be the
civilian heads of the services.
But I don't have an update on timing for you.
Q: So you are saying that the secretary -- that Secretary Austin is consulting with the president about who he should look at?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to get into private conversations or
consultations between the president, commander-in-chief. I think you
can understand why I wouldn't do that. What I am saying is that that he
is aware of the need to fill those assignments and that when the time
is right he will make the appropriate recommendations to the president.
And it ultimately is the president's decision to nominate individuals
for those jobs.
Anything more?
Q: Are there any updates on the attack on Al Asad? Are the Iraqis
making any progress in their investigation or did they share any useful
information with you?
MR. KIRBY: I don't have any updates on the Iraqi investigation.
Before I go, I want to go back to one question. This was Jeff's
question about whether or not Mr. Carlson should apologize to all women
in the military. Again, as I said, I won't speak for -- to that
specifically, but I would hope that in the reaction he has seen, and
hopefully in our reaction here today, that he'll realize the mistake he
made and express some regret about the manner in which he essentially
demeaned the entire U.S. military and how we defend and how we serve
this country.
Okay. With that, see you.
Posts
