White House press briefing transcript, Jan 28, 2025

On tariffs.

They all have a criminal record?

And welcome to the briefing room.

If they broke our nation's laws, yes, they are a criminal.

Yes.

Thank you. On stripping security details for figures like John Bolton, Pompeo, Brian Hook. Senator Tom Cotton said that he's seen the intelligence and the threat from Iran is real for anyone who played a role in the Soleimani strike. He voiced concern it wouldn't just impact those individuals but potentially their family, innocent bystanders, friends — anyone who is near them when they're out in public. Is the president open to reconsidering his decision?

The president was asked and answered this yesterday, and he was firm in his decision, despite some of the comments that you had referenced. And he's made it very clear that he does not believe American taxpayers should fund security details for individuals who have served in the government for the rest of their lives. And there's nothing stopping these individuals that you mentioned from obtaining private security.

That's where the president stands on it. I have no updates on that.

Is there any concern that this decision might jeopardize the administration's ability to hire the best advisers for these kinds of positions in the future?

No. In fact, I've talked to the Presidential Personnel Office who has told me directly that there is such an influx of resumes for this administration that it's incredibly overwhelming. There is no lack of talent for the Trump administration.

Reagan Ree- —

And would he — would he take any responsibility —

Thanks, Karoline.

— if anything happened to these people? Would he feel at all that his decision was a factor in that?

The president was asked and answered this yesterday. I'd defer you to his comments.

Thanks, Karoline.

Karoline —

Reagan, since you're in the back row, I hear y- — the back row hasn't gotten much attention in the last four years —

Yes, thank you.

— so I'm happy to answer your question.

And I can project. (Laughter.)

Does the president intend to permanently cut off funding to NGOs that are bringing illegal foreign nationals to the country, such as Catholic Charities?

I am actually quite certain that the president signed an executive order that did just that, and I can point you to that.

One more, Karoline.

Yeah.

President Trump issued an executive order on increased vetting for refugees in visa applications.

That's right.

Part of that order was considering an outright ban for countries that have deficient screening processes. Has the president considered yet which countries might fall into this category? Are countries like Afghanistan or Syria under consideration for a full ban?

Yeah. So, the president signed an executive order to streamline the vetting for visa applicants and for illegal immigrants in this country who are coming, of course, from other nations.

It also directed the secretary of State to review the process and make sure that other countries around the world are being completely transparent with our nation and the individuals that they are sending here. And so, the secretary of State has been directed to report back to the president. I haven't seen that report yet. We've only been here for a few days.

(Cross-talk.)

Karoline, two questions for you. One on the freeze in federal funding. Who advised the president on the legality of telling government agencies that they don't have to spend money that was already appropriated by Congress?

Well, as the OMB memo states, this is certainly within the confines of the law.

So, White House Counsel's Office believes that this is within the pe- — president's power to do it, and therefore, he's doing it.

Okay. So, they disagree with lawmakers who say that they don't have the power to — to freeze this funding?

Again, I would point you to the language in the memo that clearly states this is within the law.

And on what happened on Friday night. The — the administration fired several inspectors general without giving Congress the 30-day legally required notification that they were being fired. I think only two were left at DO- — DHS and the DOJ. And then, yesterday, we saw several prosecutors — I believe 12 — fired from the Justice Department who worked on the investigations into the president. As you know, they are career prosecutors; therefore, they are afforded civil service protections. How is the administration deciding which laws to follow and which ones to ignore?

So, it is the belief of this White House and the White House Counsel's Office that the president was within his exe- — executive authority to do that. He is the executive of the executive branch, and, therefore, he has the power to fire anyone within the executive branch that he wishes to.

There's also a case that went before the Supreme Court in 2020: Scaila [Seila] Law LLC, v. the Customs — the [Consumer Financial Protection] Bureau Protection. I would advise you to look at that case, and that's the legality that this White House has rested on.

So, you're confident that if they bring lawsuits against you — those prosecutors who were fired — that — that they will succeed?

We will win in court, yes.

And did he personally direct this, given they worked on the classified documents investigation and the election interference investigation?

This was a memo that went out by the Presidential Personnel Office, and the president is the leader of this White House. So, yes.

So, it did come from him?

Yes, it came from this White House.

(Cross-talk.)

Karoline.

Sir.

Thank you. Congrats on your first day behind the podium.

Thank you.

President Trump ended funding for UNRWA and also designated the Houthis a foreign terrorist organization.

That's right.

Both were decisions that the previous administration had reversed. So, here's my question: Will there be an investigation into who gave the previous administration this terrible advice?

Well, that's a very good point. I haven't heard discussions about such an ins- — investigation, but it wouldn't be a bad idea, considering that the Houthis cer- — certainly are terrorists. They have launched attacks on U.S. naval ships across this world, and so I think it was a very wise move by this administration to redesignate them as a terrorist group, because they are. And I think it was a foolish decision by the previous administration to do so.

As for an investigation, I'm not sure about that, but it's not a bad idea.

(Cross-talk.)

Josh.

Thank you for the question. I appreciate it. Can you give us an update on the president's plan for his tariff agenda? He spoke a lot about this yesterday, and there's a couple of dates coming up that —

Sure.

— he's spoken to. Number one, February 1st. He's alluded to both the potential for tariffs for Canada and Mexico but also China to take effect on those days. Where is — what's he thinking about that?

Yeah.

Should those countries expect that on the 1st?

Again, he was asked and answered this question this past weekend when he took a lot of questions from the press, and he said that the February 1st date for Canada and Mexico still holds.

And what about the China 10 percent tariff that he also had mused about last Tuesday going into effect on the same date?

Yeah, the president has said that he is very much still considering that for February 1st.

And then, separately, yesterday, he talked also about sectoral tariffs on, for instance, pharmaceuticals, as well as semiconductor computer chips. He talked about steel, aluminum, and copper. What's the timeline on those? Is that a similar sort of "coming days" thing or —

Yeah, so when the president talked about that in his speech yesterday, that actually wasn't a new announcement. That was within a presidential memorandum that he signed in one of the first days here in the White House on his America First trade agenda. So, there's more details on those tariffs in there.

As far as a date, I don't have a specific date to read out to you, but the president is committed to implementing tariffs effectively, just like he did in his first term.

And then — and then, finally, he also was asked on the plane when he gaggled about the potential for a universal tariff. He was asked maybe about two and a half percent.

Yeah.

There was a report about that. He said he wanted "much bigger than that." Should we understand that these tariffs would add up? You know, in other words, you might have country-specific tariffs like Canada, Mexico, China. You might have sectoral tariffs, like on pharmaceuticals, as well as a potential universal tariff on top of that. Do these stack on one or the other, or would one sort of take precedence over another?

All I can point you to is what the president has said on this front: the February 1st date for Canada and Mexico and also the China tariff that he has discussed.

He rejected the 2.5 percent tariff. He said that was a little bit too low. He wants it to be higher.

I'll leave it to him to make any decisions on that front.

Do you have any comment on what the —

(Cross-talk.)

— what the Mexicans and Canadians —

Phil.

— have done so far? Do you have any comment on whether that has met the bar of what he wants to see on fentanyl? Thank you.

I — I won't get ahead of the president, again, on advocating to foreign nations on what they should or shouldn't do to get away from these tariffs. The president has made it very clear, again, that he expects every nation around this world to cooperate with the repatriation of their citizens. And the president has also put out specific statements in terms of Canada and Mexico when it comes to what he expects in terms of border security.

We have seen a historic level of cooperation from Mexico. But, again, as far as I'm still tracking — and that was last night talking to the president directly — February 1st is still on the books.

Thank you.

Phil.

Thank you, Karoline. Quick programming note, and then a question on taxes.

A programming note.

Well, in terms of programming, should —

That sounds fun.

— we expect to see you here every day? How frequently will these —

That's a good question.

— press briefings be?

It is a good question, April.

So, look, the president, as you know, is incredibly accessible. First day here, he wanted all of you in the Oval Office. You got a 60-minute press conference with the leader of the free world — while he was simultaneously signing executive orders, I may add. That's pretty impressive. I don't think the previous office holder would be able to pull such a thing off.

So, look, the president is the best spokesperson that this White House has, and I can assure you that you will be hearing from both him and me as much as possible.

And then a question about tax cuts. You know, the president has promised to extend the tax cuts from the previous term. I'm curious, you know, does the president support corresponding spending cuts, as some Republicans have called for in Congress? And will the new Treasury secretary be leading those negotiations with the Hill, as Mnuchin did during the first administration?

The president is committed to both tax cuts and spending cuts.

And he has a great team negotiating on his behalf, but there's no better negotiator than Donald Trump, and I'm sure he'll be involved in this reconciliation process as it moves forward.

(Cross-talk.)

Karoline, in the announcement that you made last night on the Iron Dome, it said the president had directed that the United States will build this Iron Dome.

Yeah.

When you read into the executive order, it seemed short of that. It asked for a series of studies —

Yeah.

— and reports back on — can you tell us whether the president has directed this and, if he is this concerned on this issue, why the suspensions that we saw listed by OMB included so many different nuclear programs, nonproliferation programs, programs to blend down nuclear weapons, and s- — and so forth?

First of all, when it comes to the Iron Dome, the executive order directed the implementation of the — of an Iron Dome. It also, as you said, kind of directed research and studies to see if — or — or how the United States can go about doing this, particularly the Department of Defense.

When it comes to the other question that you asked about those specific programs, again, I would say, this is not a — a ban; this is a temporary pause and a freeze to ensure that all of the money going out from Washington, D.C., is in align with the president's agenda.

And as the Office of Management and Budget has updates on what will be kick-started, once again, I will provide those to you.

Can you clarify for a sec what you were saying before on Medicaid? It wasn't clear to me whether you were saying that no Medicaid would be cut off. Obviously, a lot of this goes to states before it goes to individuals and so forth. So, are you guaranteeing here that no individual now on Medicaid would see a cutoff because of the pause?

I'll check back on that and get back to you.

Jon.

Thanks a lot, Karoline. As you know, in the first week that the president was in office, signed an executive order as it relates to birthright citizenship — trying to eliminate that. Now, 22 state attorney generals have said that this is unconstitutional. A federal judge has just agreed with their argument. What's the administration's argument for doing away with birthright citizenship?

The folks that you mentioned have a right to have that legal opinion, but it is in disagreement with the legal opinion of this administration.

This administration believes that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, and that is why President Trump signed that executive order. Illegal immigrants who come to this country and have a child are not subject to the laws of this jurisdiction. That's the opinion of this administration.

We have already appealed the rul- — the lawsuit that was filed against this administration, and we are prepared to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to, because President Trump believes that this is a necessary step to secure our nation's borders and protect our homeland.

Monica.

And then on foreign policy — on foreign policy, Karoline —

Thank you, Karoline. It's great to see you, and you're doing a great —

— on foreign policy, if I may. The president's commitment to the NATO defense Alliance, is it as strong as the prior administration? Is it the same as when he served as president in his first term in office?

As long as NATO pays their fair share.

And President Trump has called on NATO Allies to increase their defense spending to 5 percent. You actually saw the head of NATO at Davos last week on Bloomberg Television saying that President Trump is right and if Europe wants to keep itself safe, they should increase their defense spending.

I would just add that there was no greater ally to our European allies than President Trump in his first term. The world, for all nations in Europe, and, of course, here at home was much safer because of Presidents Tru- — Trump's peace through strength diplomatic approach.

Monica.

Karoline —

Thank you. Thank you, Karoline. And it's great to finally be called on as well in the briefing room. I appreciate that.

You're welcome.

Of course, we know President Trump just got back from North Carolina and California meeting with victims of natural disasters. There's the two-year anniversary of the East Palestine, Ohio, toxic train derailment. Does the president have any plans to go visit the victims of that toxic spill or just visit in general?

Not — no plans that I can read out for you here. If that changes, I will certainly keep you posted.

What I can tell you is that President Trump still talks about his visit to East Palestine, Ohio. That was one of the turning points, I would say, in the previous election campaign, where Americans were reminded that President Trump is a man of the people. And he, as a candidate, visited that town that was just derailed by the train derailment — no pun intended — and he offered support and hope, just like I saw the president do this past week.

It was a purposeful decision by this president, on his first domestic trip, to go to North Carolina and to California to visit with Americans who were impacted by Hurricane Helene and also by the deadly fires — a red state and a blue state, both of which feel forgotten by the previous administration and the federal government. That has now — that has now ended under President Trump.

He will continue to put Americans first, whether they're in East Palestine, in Pacific Palisades, or in North Carolina.

(Cross-talk.)

Sure.

Thank you, Karoline. On California, could you please clarify what the military did with the water last night, as referenced in the president's Truth Social post?

The water has been turned back on in California, and this comes just days after President Trump visited Pacific Palisades and, as you all saw, applied tremendous pressure on state and local officials in Pacific Palisades, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, to turn on the water and to direct that water to places in the south and in the middle of the state that have been incredibly dry, which has led to the expansion — the rapid expansion of these fires.

So, could you clarify what the military's role was, where the water came from, and how it got there?

Again, the Army Corps of Engineers has been on the ground in California to respond to the devastation from these wildfires. And I would point out that just days after President Trump visited the devastation from these fires, the water was turned on. That is because of the pressure campaign he put on state and local officials there, who clearly lack all common sense.

And I will never forget being at that round table with the president last week and hearing the frustration in the voices of Pacific Palisades residents who feel as though their government has just gone insane. Before President Trump showed up on the scene, Karen Bass was telling private property owners that they would have to wait 18 months to access their private property.

So, this administration, the president and his team that's on the ground in California — Ric Grenell, who he has designated to oversee this great crisis — ha- — will continue to put pressure on Karen Bass and state and local officials to allow residents to access their properties.

This is a huge part of it. These residents want to take part in their own clearing out of their properties. They should be able to do that. It's the United States of America. What happened to our freedom? Clearly, it's gone in California, but not anymore under President Trump.

Karoline —

April.

Karoline, welcome to the briefing room.

Thank you.

Several questions. One on the pause. Will minority-serving institutions, preferably colleges and universities, have those monies held back temporarily at this moment?

Again, I have not seen the entire list, because this memo was just sent out. So, I will provide you all with updates as we receive them. Okay?

Karoline —

And secondly — als- —

Karoline.

Also, secondly, when it comes to immigration, there is this southern border focus. What happens to those who have overstayed their visas? That is part of the broken immigration system. In 2023, there was a report by the Biden administration, the Homeland Security Department, that said overstays of visas were three times more than usual. Will there be a focus on the overstays for visas as well?

If an individual is overstaying their visa, they are therefore an illegal immigrant residing in this country, and they are subject to deportation.

And also, lastly —

Yes.