Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:09 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. It's nice to see such a chipper crowd today. I hope you all have had a pleasant weekend, maybe caught up on some sleep. So it's nice to see you at the briefing. I don't have anything at the top, but we can begin today with award winner, Josh Lederman.

Q: Thank you, Josh. So we have a new Attorney General.

MR. EARNEST: We do, finally.

Q: And what has the President conveyed to Loretta Lynch as her top driving priority for her tenure?

MR. EARNEST: Well, listen, Josh, the reason that the President chose Loretta Lynch to be the next Attorney General of the United States is she is an individual who has used her position as a federal prosecutor to advance the cause of justice for the American people. And she, as we had the opportunity to discuss at some length over a protracted period of time, she is somebody who earned a reputation for being a tough but fair and independent prosecutor.

And the President would certainly expect that she will insulate herself from political considerations when she's doing her job. He would expect that she would live up to her -- live up to the challenge of trying to advance justice for the American people. And whether that is focused on enforcing the law, to trying to advance the kind of criminal justice reform that we see strong bipartisan support for on Capitol Hill, there's also an opportunity for her to play a substantive role in trying to build stronger trust between local law enforcement agencies and the communities that they're sworn to serve and protect all across the country. So she certainly has a long to-do list. And I know that she relishes the opportunity that she has in front of her. Those opportunities include some significant challenges, but there is no doubt in the mind of the President that she is more than up to the job.

Q: It was poignant, perhaps, that this morning her swearing-in was taking place at the same time as the funeral for Freddie Gray in Baltimore. I'm wondering, does the President hope that Attorney General Lynch will take on the role as a point person for dealing specifically with this issue of tensions between law enforcement and our communities?

MR. EARNEST: Well, as the nation's top law enforcement official and as someone whose nomination garnered strong support from both law enforcement and civil rights leaders across the country, I would imagine that she could play a pivotal role in trying to advance this kind of understanding that will have important benefits both for law enforcement, but also for the communities -- for the people who live in the communities that those law enforcement officers serve.

So this is an interest of hers. Obviously, the President believes it's an important priority. And I think there is the expectation that she could do some important work in this area.

I would point out, however, that this is fundamentally a local issue; that there does need to be a commitment from local elected leaders and local law enforcement leaders to confront this challenge and to demonstrate some determination about trying to build bridges with the citizens that they're sworn to protect.

But there is an important role for the federal government to play in terms of supporting those efforts. There obviously was a task force that the President created that put together a long list of best practices that can be deployed by law enforcement officials across the country as they try to seek that kind of understanding, and that that could be a -- we expect that those recommendations will be beneficial to the process. But having somebody like Loretta Lynch that has strong credibility with leaders on both sides of this issue I think will no doubt be helpful.

Q: Looking ahead to the meeting tomorrow with Prime Minister Abe, the President, as he's defended TPP to his critics, has repeatedly said that if the U.S. and its partners don't write the rules on trade, that China will. And even just this morning, the U.S. and Japan had an announcement about furthering Japan's defensive capabilities, which are largely seen as a counterweight to China. So I'm wondering, as the President meets with Abe tomorrow, what is his message to Beijing?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think, Josh, the most important part of this visit is the kind of message that it sends to the American people and to the Japanese people about the strength of our alliance. And the President has spent a lot of time during his six years in office so far talking about the strategic priority of rebalancing our focus in Asia. And one core element of that is fortifying and modernizing some of the important alliances that the United States has with our allies in that region, and Japan is no exception to that.

There obviously is a strong security cooperation -- there already is strong security cooperation that exists between our two countries. We are pleased to see a willingness on the part of the Japanese to assume more responsibility for some of those security concerns. And we would welcome them stepping up in that way, and they can certainly count on further U.S. support as they do that.

But that's not the only part of our relationship that is so critical to citizens of both of our countries. As I think all of you anticipate, the President and Prime Minister Abe will have ample opportunity to talk about the economic relationship between the United States and Japan. The latest statistic that I saw is that the amount of trade, the bilateral trade relationship between our two countries on an annual basis is about $269 billion. That means that there are -- that this relationship between the United States and Japan isn't just critical to the economies of both our countries, it's critical to the global economy.

And obviously, by trying to reach a TPP agreement, the President and Prime Minister Abe are hopeful that we can build and expand that relationship in ways that will have important economic benefits for citizens in both of our countries. The President is certainly determined to reach an agreement that will clearly be in the best interest of American businesses and American workers. And I'm confident that that will get a lot of attention in the meetings tomorrow.

There are a range of other important relationships that we have with Japan, as well. We cooperate with them on areas that relate to global health, nuclear nonproliferation; even some issues in the Middle East in countering violent extremism are areas where we cooperate closely with the Japanese in a way that has a beneficial impact on the American people.

Q: And there were some additional reports over the weekend about the intrusion into the White House's email system recently. Can you confirm that the Russians did have the ability to read some of the President's unclassified emails?

MR. EARNEST: Josh, this is a -- we have talked for a number of months now, dating back to last fall, about some suspicious activity that was detected on the White House computer network. The White House took important steps to limit that activity, and it did not result in the compromise of any data on the classified network. It did not render inoperable individual computer terminals or other aspects of the system.

But we have not discussed the extent of that activity of concern, and we have not ascribed any attribution to that activity to this point. And I know there's a lot of reporting out there that's being done on this, but I don't have anything to add to it from here today.

Q: Josh, following up --

MR. EARNEST: Go ahead, April.

Q: I want to follow up on some of what Josh just said, particularly with the irony. Loretta Lynch was just sworn in today at the same time as the funeral of Freddie Gray in Baltimore. And she is very well qualified to deal with these issues, as you've said from this podium, particularly in light of what happened with Eric Garner. She was working on that case vehemently.

Now, out of Baltimore, Reverend Jamal Bryant, who is paying for the funeral service of Freddie Gray, said that this should be Loretta Lynch's number-one priority at this moment, dealing with this problem of police officers who are killing these black suspects, or these black men who are not suspects. What do you say about that?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I would say a couple of things. The first is there is an active -- well, let me say it this way. The Department of Justice is currently gathering information as it relates specifically to Mr. Gray's case, and I don't want to say anything specifically about the case that might be construed as interference in that independent law enforcement investigation.

But obviously that is something underway that began shortly after the details of this case became public, and that was something that was started under Attorney General Holder's watch. And I'm confident that that will run its usual course.

Separate from that, there is this broader issue about the relationship between local law enforcement agencies and local communities across the country. And as I mentioned earlier, that is primarily a local issue; that it's going to require the commitment of local elected officials, local civil rights leaders, local community leaders, and local law enforcement to try to bridge the gap that exists in some communities across the country. That by enhancing trust between local police officers and local communities, that will make the law enforcement officials and officers more effective in fighting crime.

It also will allow them to do that very critically important work in an environment that's a little bit safer, both for the law enforcement officers themselves and for the communities that they serve. And that ultimately is the objective that we're trying to achieve, and it's one that's shared by people on both sides of this issue. So there should be some common ground. But ultimately it's going to require the commitment of local leaders in communities across the country.

The role for the federal government and the role for the Attorney General in this case is to encourage that kind of cooperation. In some cases, there's even cooperation that can be facilitated directly. And if there's an opportunity to do that, I'm confident that Attorney General Lynch or other members of her staff will be willing to do that.

The other thing that's been done through the creation of this task force is the generation of a report that details a long list of best practices. And sharing this information about what's worked in some communities with other communities that could benefit from it is a role for the federal government to play that can be constructive to this broader effort.

That all said, there's a long list of other important priorities that Attorney General Lynch will also be focused on, as well. So I wouldn't pinpoint it down to say that she's got -- that this is at the top of her priority list, or that this is the number-one item on her priority list. But I would say -- and I think she could speak to this better than I can -- that she recognizes that this is an important challenge facing law enforcement all across the country. And it's important that the Department of Justice is engaged in helping try to address this complicated issue.

Q: If my colleagues will bear with me, I have a couple more questions. And you say it's a local issue -- you're right about that -- but it's a local issue that has been happening nationally at an alarming rate. I mean, we're hearing more about it now after Sanford, Ferguson, Cleveland, New York, now Baltimore, and beyond. So you say it's a local issue, but with all of these videos that are popping up of these deaths, doesn't it put more of a national spotlight and put the onus more so on the Justice Department, not just necessarily on the local policing units around this nation?

MR. EARNEST: Well, ultimately this is a problem, April, that the federal government is not going to be able to solve. It's going to require the commitment of local elected officials, of local law enforcement leaders, and of people in communities across the country to try to address this problem where it exists.

The President has also been clear about this -- and this is an important point that I wouldn't want to get lost -- which is that the vast majority of men and women in local law enforcement organizations are doing heroic work. These are individuals who, frankly, walk out of their house every day prepared to put their life on the line to try to protect the community that they are serving. And that's a testament to their professionalism and generosity and courage. And it's one that deserves not just our appreciation, but our respect. And that's the way that the vast majority of law enforcement officers across the country approach their job.

But there's no doubt that there are communities in this country where there is work to be done to better strengthen the ties, again, between the local law enforcement officers and the communities that they're sworn to serve and protect. And to the extent that the nation's top law enforcement officer can encourage them to do that important work, I'm confident that she'll not hesitate to do that. To the extent that the federal government can be supportive of local law enforcement officers as they consider some of the best practices that have been compiled by the task force, we're going to encourage them to do that.

So this will be a priority. But as the nation's top law enforcement officer, she's got a long list of things on her -- a long list of priorities that she's ready to confront.

Q: And last question. Broderick Johnson, the President's Cabinet Secretary, is at the funeral in Baltimore. He is a Baltimorean, grew up in Baltimore -- a young black man growing up in Baltimore who has become a Cabinet Secretary for the President. How personal is this for Broderick to go back to Baltimore, his hometown, to be at this funeral, understanding that he made it out of Baltimore -- he's a young black man who made it out of Baltimore?

MR. EARNEST: I've had the chance to talk to Broderick about this just a little bit, and this is an -- I know that he does still maintain some very strong ties to his hometown. And I actually understand that the funeral that's taking place today is actually taking place in the church that his mother attends. And again, that's an indication of just how personally he's been affected by this, and I think that makes him a very effective representative of the President of the United States in attending today's funeral.

Julie.

Q: Thanks. Reports over the weekend indicated the U.S. could formalize a policy that would allow families to pay ransom for their loved ones being held abroad. I know you touched on the review of such policies on Friday. Do you have anything to add, any updates on that? Any considerations?

MR. EARNEST: Julie, the thing that I would reiterate, as we discussed at the end of last week, is that the hostage policy review that's currently underway is one that's focused on ensuring that we're properly integrating the wide range of U.S. government assets that are deployed to try to recover a U.S. citizen that's being held hostage.

It also is carefully examining the mechanism for communicating with the families of those who are being held hostage. When you have aspects of the U.S. government -- from the intelligence community to the Department of Defense to law enforcement, homeland security and others, including the White House -- then it's important that that information be streamlined so that accurate information is being communicated in a timely fashion to the family of someone who's being held hostage.

So that's what the focus is of the review. The review is not reconsidering the long-established U.S. policy of not making concessions to terrorist organizations.

Q: This wouldn't be the U.S. policy, but if a family wanted to pay a ransom through a -- and go through another route, not the U.S. government, would the U.S. still consider prosecuting that family for breaking that rule?

MR. EARNEST: Well, prosecutorial decisions are decisions that are made by prosecutors at the Department of Justice, not by the White House.

Q: And then on Saturday, the U.S. pledged a million dollars in an initial round of humanitarian aid to go to the victims of the Nepal earthquake. Now that the death toll has reached I think above 4,000, is any more aid being considered, numbers or people?

MR. EARNEST: Yes on all accounts. I understand that earlier today, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that another $9 million in assistance was going to be provided to the people of Nepal who have been affected by Saturday's earthquake.

And again, this is just the beginning of an effort. There's a 128-person USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team that has been deployed to the region. And they'll be there to conduct assessments, coordinate humanitarian responses and, importantly, provide search-and-rescue capabilities along with about 45 tons of cargo.

So this a preliminary effort, and these are individuals who have a lot of experience in operating in a hard-to-reach disaster zone. And so there are some unique capabilities that they can bring to this effort.

Let me just also say, though, that we express our deepest condolences to all those who were affected by Saturday's earthquake in Nepal to include the families of those who died in Nepal, but also the families of those who died in India and Bangladesh as a result of the earthquake. And the United States is determined to stand by the people of Nepal and those affected in India and Bangladesh as they work to recover from this tremendous humanitarian disaster.

Jon.

Q: Josh, back to the policy on Americans held hostage. Is there any consideration to no longer threatening the families of those hostages with prosecution if they pursue independently the ransom path? I mean, that's the question here. Because some of the families have reported back that they have essentially been threatened they'll be prosecuted if they try to get their loved one back by pursuing a ransom path.

Q: Jon, I'm not going to get into the details of any conversations that have previously occurred between the federal government and some of the families that are in this unthinkable situation. But it is concerns like that that have been raised by the families that have prompted this review of the way in which the federal government communicates with these families.

So again, this is -- one of the reasons it's difficult to communicate with these families in a way that is timely and consistent with other information that they're receiving is that you have a lot of federal government agencies that are expending significant resources to try to find their loved one. And so it's understandable that getting accurate information in a timely fashion to those families is difficult work, to make sure that all this information is properly integrated.

And one of the proposals I mentioned last week is the creation of essentially a fusion cell that would have a representative from the agencies that are involved in this effort to sit together around the table and try to -- as they work on this issue.

The proposal also contemplates the creation of a family engagement team that would reside within the fusion cell that would be principally charged with communicating with the family. And having that one point of contact -- and that one point of contact having direct access to all of the agencies that are involved in this effort is one way that we could streamline that communication.

Now we're only in the interim phase of this effort. But let me just finish my answer by saying that getting feedback from the families that have been through this gut-wrenching experience is an important part of this review. And we're very interested in understanding what sort of experience these families have had so that we can shape the efforts of the federal government's response to better suit the needs and better meet the needs, again, of the families that are in this unthinkable situation.

Q: So it sounded like there was a "yes" in there, that your -- consideration here is no longer threatening families of Americans held hostage with prosecution.

MR. EARNEST: To answer the question "yes" would be to say that that is something that's happened in the past, and that's not something I'm prepared to say.

Q: But going forward -- forget the past -- no longer that you will -- that in the future, families will no longer be -- in the future, families will not be threatened with prosecution.

MR. EARNEST: Going forward, we are going to conduct this review and determine what we can do to make our communication with these families more effective. But the other thing that's also true is that it's the responsibility of the Department of Justice to make prosecutorial decisions. And that obviously will not be anything that's decided in the context of this review, and certainly not something that I will -- a policy that I'll state from here.

Q: And the President had some moving comments about Jason Rezaian, who, of course, has been held prisoner for nine months in Iran. Why not use this moment of leverage that you have with the Iranians to push for the release of not just Jason Rezaian -- of course there are four Americans held prisoner in Iran. Why not use this leverage, as you did with the Cuba deal to get Alan Gross released, to get these Americans released?

MR. EARNEST: I think it's that there are three Americans that are currently held in Iran, and one other American whose whereabouts are still unknown and could be in Iran. And the United States does on a regular basis raise the case of these individuals with our Iranian counterparts, and I know that Secretary Kerry is meeting with his Iranian counterpart in New York today, principally to talk about the current ongoing nuclear negotiations.

But as he -- in the past, he has taken the opportunity of those kinds of visits to reiterate our significant concerns about the treatment and well-being of those American citizens, and to ask for their immediate release. And I don't want to prejudge his meeting, but the State Department will provide a readout.

What we have said is that we're focused on this nuclear issue in the context of these ongoing negotiations. And the concern is simply this -- is that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is a top priority, because the long list of concerns that we have with Iranian behavior would be made only worse if Iran had a nuclear weapon. So when it comes to these specific U.S. citizens, it would be only harder to negotiate their release if we were talking to a nuclear-armed Iran.

So what we're focused on is shutting down every pathway that Iran has to a nuclear weapon, even as we continue to inform our Iranian counterparts of the need to release these American citizens that are being unjustly held in their country.

Q: The American that's been held longest in Iran is also a Marine veteran, Amir Hekmati. His family has written Lisa Monaco a letter since Saturday's speech at the correspondents' dinner, expressing some frustration that the President has never mentioned the name, according to the family, Amir Hekmati. And they say they actually received a call from Amir in prison saying that he was taunted by his guards by the fact that the President had not mentioned his name but had mentioned Jason Rezaian. They say he's been subject to torture, he's been sentenced to death, and they want to know why it is that the President has never mentioned his name. This is, again, a veteran, a Marine.

MR. EARNEST: Despite the fact that there are -- that these are all Americans and they are being held in Iran, each case and the efforts that we're undertaking to secure their release is treated independently. And certainly when considering how best to secure the release of these individuals, a calculation is made about the wisdom of the publicity that surrounds the efforts to secure their release.

So in each case, a different calculation is made. By I can just say, as a general matter, what the President said about Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post reporter that's currently detained in Iran, also applies to those other Americans, which is that the President and the U.S. government is prepared to go to great lengths to secure their release.

Q: So I wonder if you can give me a direct response to the family. I mean, this is a pretty strong letter. They say, "Why has President Obama yet to utter the name Amir Hekmati? President Obama cannot say the name Amir Hekmati out loud. Why am I forced to write this email to you again, the same subject again, the same plea again?" Again, held almost four years, and the family is saying not only that but they've had very little contact coming from the administration. They write, "Why is it that he" -- meaning the President -- "cannot be bothered to even sign a letter to us? Instead he has Ben Rhodes write on his behalf. Why is it that my brother is being left behind?" This again from Amir Hekmati's sister. I mean, obviously, a very heartfelt letter.

MR. EARNEST: It is a very heartfelt letter, and there's no doubt that our hearts go out to families who are in this terrible situation. And they're obviously -- and justifiably -- very concerned about the safety and well-being of their loved one. I can tell you that the concern for the well-being of those individuals is shared by everybody here at the White House. We have made clear what those concerns are to the Iranian government, and we're going to continue the effort to try to secure the release and safe return of these individuals.

Michelle.

Q: Just following along with that, now that this intense negotiation has been going on and it's reaching the final stages, would you agree that now would be the best time to make that case for these people to be released? Is this the best chance of having this be at least a peripheral part of the nuclear deal?

MR. EARNEST: Michelle, I think the best way that I can explain it is that what we are focused on right now is this important priority of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And throughout this process, we have made clear, directly to the Iranians, that securing the release of American citizens who are unjustly being held in Iran is also a top priority. And we're going to continue to insist on the fair treatment of these individuals and insist on their release so that they can be reunited with their families. That continues to be a priority of the administration and it's something that we reiterate on a regular basis to our Iranian counterparts.

Q: But do you think that this process that's ongoing, do you think that this is the best chance in a long time to actually secure the release of the remaining hostages?

MR. EARNEST: What we have concluded is that this is the best chance in a long time to shut down every pathway that Iran has to a nuclear weapon. And as I mentioned to Jon, it would only be harder to secure the release of these American citizens if Iran had a nuclear weapon at their disposal; that it would make them more dangerous, that they might feel like they could take some greater risks because they're nuclear-armed. And that would obviously, I think it goes without saying, put even more people in the region in particular at greater risk.

So this is something that is obviously very painful for the families who go to bed every night deeply worried about the well-being of their loved ones. And they can be assured that there are individuals in the Obama administration and in the U.S. government who go to bed every night worried about the well-being of their loved one, as well.

Q: Okay. And on trade, it was interesting to hear the President use the word "dishonest" in the last few days to describe people who feel that there's too much secrecy surrounding the TPP and certain trade deals in general. Why does the President feel that way? I mean, why not just declassify the TPP as some of those people that I guess he considers to be "dishonest" are calling for?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I guess we should start with the facts. The facts are that every single member of Congress has access right now to the current state of the negotiations; that the current draft of the document is something that can be reviewed at a moment's notice by any member of Congress. In fact, there is a copy of that material that's actually kept on Capitol Hill for the convenience of members of Congress so that they can review it.

The second thing is, the trade bill that has now passed the Senate Finance Committee includes something in it that has never been included in a TPA bill before. And that is a provision that specifically directs the President of the United States to make public a final agreement if one is reached, and allow the public to review it for 60 days before the President even signs it. And that would give an opportunity for members of Congress and the public to evaluate the final deal, and to express their view on the deal before the President makes a final decision about whether or not to sign on.

That, I think, is an indication of -- I know that's one reason that there were more Democrats who voted for the TPA bill in the Senate Finance Committee than voted against it, in part because it included some of those key transparency provisions. The President continues to be confident that a final agreement will be one that's clearly in the best interest of American businesses, clearly in the best interest of American workers, and clearly in the best interest of American middle-class families. And everyone will have an opportunity to evaluate that for themselves if an agreement is reached and prior to the President signing it.

Of course, the other part of this that's also important is that the United States Congress would also be in a position to vote on the deal, and it's something that they would have ample time to consider after the President has signed it into law -- or after the President has signed on to the agreement.

Q: Why not declassify it now?

MR. EARNEST: Well, because right now there is no final agreement. Right now, all you have essentially is the negotiating position of the United States and the negotiating position of folks who are of other countries who are seeking to be a party to this deal. And the fact is, as we say in all of these sorts of international negotiations, and even some of the domestic ones, nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.

And so to make public aspects of the agreement that haven't been agreed to is probably counterproductive to the negotiations, but also would leave people with the wrong impression about what it is the United States is going to insist upon in a final agreement, and what the other parties to the agreement are going to insist on being included in a final agreement.

So what the President has said is that we're going to leave ample time once an agreement has been reached among the 11 countries for the public to review this before the President himself signs on to it, and then even additional time beyond that before Congress weighs in with their views, as well.

Q: In using words like "dishonest" or "wrong" in describing some of those opposing views, you don't think that that's counterproductive?

MR. EARNEST: As a factual matter, the claims of secrecy are wrong, because every member of Congress does have access to that document, and they can see where things stand now. Every member of Congress and every member of the public will have ready access to the document if an agreement is completed. And they'll have extensive access to the document for 60 days prior to the President signing the agreement, and even more time before Congress themselves needs to weigh in and make a decision on this.

So that is an indication that the President is optimistic that if we reach an agreement, that we'll have a very strong case to make about how American businesses, workers and middle-class families will benefit from this agreement.

Q: And on Nepal, we're seeing some countries send in some military equipment or planes from the U.K., et cetera. Is that something that's being considered at this point?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Michelle, the thing that I actually learned today is that there are some U.S. military personnel that are already in Nepal, that they were there for a previously scheduled training exercise, and that these individuals are using their equipment and their tremendous expertise to assist in the recovery effort.

And this is everything from providing urgent logistical assistance to even, in some cases, rendering medical assistance to those who have been harmed in the earthquake. And again, I think that is a testament to the service and courage of our military personnel -- that on a moment's notice, even when they're in a strange land, they stand ready to use the resources of the U.S. government and to use their expertise, even in a very dangerous area, to try to meet the needs of locals who have been affected by this humanitarian disaster.

Q: But is sending something more being considered right now?

MR. EARNEST: I don't have any information about additional resources that might be provided beyond the military resources that are already there, beyond the $1 million that was committed over the weekend, beyond the $9 million that's been announced today, and beyond the 128-person USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team that's being deployed to the region and should arrive in the next day or two.

Justin.

Q: I wanted to circle back on the hacking question. I know that you said that steps have been taken to mitigate the suspicious activity on the network. But I'm wondering, aside from those technical steps, if the White House has undergone any sort of review of what type of material is transmitted in the unclassified email system.

MR. EARNEST: I'm not aware of any sort of review like that. I think everybody who has responsibility for trying to provide security around the White House computer system understands that the White House is a prominent target, and that there are a variety of actors who for a variety of reasons are seeking to penetrate the White House computer network. And I know that those security experts are always reevaluating our security posture and are always monitoring the system to guard against intrusions. And they are always reviewing the steps that have been deployed to safeguard our network, and that's something that we do in the days after an intrusion like the one that we saw last fall, but it's something they even do on quiet days like today.

Q: So I guess what I'm wondering is reports have certainly suggested that things like the President's schedule, communications with diplomats and ambassadors abroad, policy discussions among top aides were things that were then accessed by -- in this intrusion. And so I'm wondering if there's been any sort of policy change in the aftermath of this intrusion so that some of those sensitive materials are no longer exchanged over the email system?

MR. EARNEST: I'm not aware of any policy changes like that that have been made. Ultimately, the reason that we have email addresses is so that we can carry on those kinds of conversations among staff and with those who don't work at the White House.

But we take very seriously the responsibilities that we have to try to exercise good cyber hygiene and make sure that we're not the victim of a phishing attack or some other effort to gain access to the White House system. And I know that our computer experts are always aware and vigilant about the threat that is posed by the wide variety of actors that would love to be able to try to gain access to the White House computer system.

Q: Cyber plaque, if you will. Cyber plaque.

MR. EARNEST: It could be. It could be.

Q: Did you create that cyber hygiene?

MR. EARNEST: No, this is some terminology that is used by our computer security experts. It's only because Justin has asked me like four questions on it that I had to use that, so you can take it up with him after the briefing if you'd like. (Laughter.)

Q: Can I ask one last question about the visit of Prime Minister Abe tomorrow?

MR. EARNEST: Sure.

Q: I know that you talked a lot about wanting to modernize that alliance, but obviously historical issues are one that continue to play a role. And so I'm wondering if you could very concretely say whether the President will bring up the Prime Minister's acknowledgement, or lack thereof, of the comfort women issue in their talks tomorrow. Do we expect that to be something that is brought up directly? And also, if you could just talk generally about that has been a frustration for the U.S. as it tries to, I think, pivot towards Asia and especially bring the alliance between Japan -- strengthen the alliance between Japan and South Korea.

MR. EARNEST: Justin, beyond what I've already said about the importance of our relationship with Japan, I don't think that I would preview the President's conversation with Prime Minister Abe in any further detail. But I will say that there is no doubt that there is a long history between our two countries. Some of it is characterized by war.

And I had this conversation with somebody earlier today, that when you walk into the office and see the flags that are along the street, where you have the United States flag flying side by side with the Japanese flag, that's something that 65 or 70 years ago, that people who worked in this building would never have even contemplated. And I think it speaks to the kind of reconciliation that's possible between two former adversaries; that there is an opportunity for us to set aside our differences and to try to pursue a more secure, peaceful future that benefits citizens in both of our countries.

And that's certainly something that multiple generations of American leaders and Japanese leaders have been able to succeed in doing. And the President looks to strengthen and modernize that relationship in a way that, again, benefits citizens in both our countries.

Q: Sure, but for South Korea, and especially the women who were essentially sex slaves, I don't think that -- the idea of this forward-looking relationship is kind of insulting. There's been concern in South Korea that the U.S. and your unwillingness, I think, to acknowledge the issue here is emblematic of sort of a long -- of this issue. Is this going to hurt our relationship with South Korea if we're not willing to press the Japanese on this?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, I don't think it's fair to characterize my unwillingness to acknowledge the situation. I think that I said that I would not prejudge at this point the extent to which it will be discussed in the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister.

Obviously, we're mindful of these issues and we're mindful of what a priority this issue is for some of our other allies in the Asia Pacific. And the United States and certainly the President believes that we can strengthen the national security of our country by pursuing ever-closer ties, both economic and security, with our allies in the region. And that's certainly true of Japan and this official visit that's coming up.

Obviously, the President in his first term had the opportunity to host the South Korean President for a state dinner here at the White House, where the depth and strength of that relationship was on display.

So this would not, of course, be the first time that we would be meeting with an ally who may have a little bit of friction in the relationship with another one of our allies. But what we believe is that by deepening these relationships, particularly when it comes to security concerns, we can address that friction in a constructive way, and allow the United States and our allies to move forward toward a more peaceful future.

Bill.

Q: Did any of the emails which the President may have sent from his personal BlackBerry to members of the staff who were on the unclassified system get swept up in the hacking?

MR. EARNEST: Bill, we have not talked about the extent of the activity of concern that was detected on the White House network.

Q: Well, this is your chance. (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST: I appreciate you giving me the chance to do that today, but I don't have any additional information about that.

Q: Doesn't it seem to -- even to you -- that you've been --

MR. EARNEST: Even to me. (Laughter.)

Q: -- less forthcoming about this particular situation than in many other cases? Very little has been said about it.

MR. EARNEST: That's true. And I think even you, Bill -- (laughter) -- would understand the sensitivity of this particular issue and why there are limits to the degree that we can talk about this publicly.

Q: Would you dispute any of the current reporting about what was revealed?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I'm very respectful of the role that the independent media plays in our country and in our government.

Q: Even you.

MR. EARNEST: And even me. I would hesitate to offer up my own criticisms of the media from here, at least in this instance. I reserve the right to do that in the future, however.

Q: But if, in fact, the President's email was compromised, even in an unclassified situation, that seems pretty serious.

MR. EARNEST: Well, I don't think that I've -- based on the way that we've talked about this issue and based on the sensitivity with which I've tried to answer your questions -- or not answer them, as the case may be -- I think that would be an indication to you that this is a matter that we take very seriously. And it's one that we're going to continue to take seriously in the future, because we understand that the White House computer network continues to be a significant target for a variety of actors who would love to have access to the information that's being maintained on that network.

Q: Are you satisfied that it is secure right now?

MR. EARNEST: I'm satisfied that there are extensive steps that have been taken. But I'm confident that even our computer security experts, if they were standing up here, would tell you that this is something that they are worried about all the time; and that they're very vigilant about the kinds of threats that our computer system faces.

They're certainly confronting a variety of adversaries that are very creative, that are willing to devote significant time and resources to try to penetrate the White House computer network, and it's something that we continue to be very focused on because it is a significant threat.

James.

Q: Josh, with respect to the individuals who are being held in Iran, is it the view of the Obama administration that these individuals are, in fact, being held against their will?

MR. EARNEST: It is our view that these citizens that we've talked about, these three citizens, are individuals who are being unjustly detained in Iran. We believe that they should be released. And as American citizens, we believe that they should be returned back to the United States where they can be reunited with their families.

Q: Since we've just established that the Obama administration regards that these individuals are being held unjustly against their will, is it the view of President Obama and his national security team that these individuals being held against their will in Iran are, in fact, hostages?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I don't know if there's a special legal determination that goes along with that particular word. So what I would say is simply that we believe these individuals should be released, that they are being unjustly detained, that they should be released so that they can reunited with their families back here in the United States.

Q: I don't know if there's a special legal classification either. But if it were my family member, and a foreign country were holding them against their will, I'd regard them as a hostage.

MR. EARNEST: I might feel the same way.

Q: So is it being considered by the Obama administration in the course of its review of hostage policy, that with respect to the Iran nuclear negotiations we have a situation in which the United States is directly negotiating with the keeper of American hostages, and moreover is paying out large sums to the keeper of American hostages to the tune of $700 million a month?

MR. EARNEST: Well, the fact is that the Iranians in the context of interim agreement have agreed to, in several important aspects, limit their nuclear program and in some key aspects to even roll it back. And in exchange, some limited sanctions relief has been offered to them.

And that is an arrangement that has the strong support of the international community. This is an arrangement that some Republicans on Capitol Hill have suggested should be the arrangement in perpetuity because of the success that it has enjoyed in limiting the development of Iran's nuclear program and preventing them from obtaining a nuclear weapon so far.

The President believes that we can actually go beyond this, and we can convince the Iranians to voluntarily take additional steps that will further limit their nuclear program, that would for the foreseeable future shut down every pathway they have to a nuclear weapon.

Q: And you're telling me all of this because it is why we're paying out the money, correct?

MR. EARNEST: Well, it is the -- I think what you're referring to as the sanctions relief that has -- the limited sanctions relief that has been offered to the Iranians in exchange for the significant steps that they've taken to limit and in some cases curtail their nuclear program.

Q: Right. So what you're essentially arguing is that even though we're negotiating directly with the keepers of American hostages and we're paying them $700 million a month for the work on the nuclear account, money is not, in fact, fungible, and that money is not bankrolling the taking of more American hostages or the other bad behaviors that Iran exhibits around the world?

MR. EARNEST: No. And we've been very direct about the fact that there are -- it's not just the unjust detention of these Americans that the United States continues to be concerned about when it comes to Iran's behavior. We know that Iran continues to offer support to terrorist organizations around the globe. We know that Iran continues to serve as a destabilizing force in an already very volatile region of the world. We know that Iran with some frequency menaces our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, and they do that by spouting anti-Semitic rhetoric that we routinely condemn.

Q: But not with the money we give them or we unfreeze?

MR. EARNEST: Well, this is an activity that Iran has been engaged in for some time. They were engaged in this activity before the sanctions were put in place. They were engaged in this activity while the sanctions were in place. And they've continued this activity while some limited sanctions relief has been offered. The only difference is that Iran has limited and scaled back in some key aspects their nuclear program, which we did in exchange for some of the limited sanctions relief that's been offered.

Q: One other quick topic. Former President George W. Bush has been quoted as having made a wide array of remarks about President Obama and his handling of foreign policy in an ostensibly private setting. First, does this administration regard that with those comments to a group of 700 people, former President Bush has effectively violated his own pledge and claim that he does not publicly criticize his successor?

MR. EARNEST: Well, the fact that I think that in his mind he did not consider this to be a public setting, it was an off-the-record setting, I don't think that was his intent.

At the same time, he didn't renounce his ability or his right to share his views on a range of issues, including foreign policy. As a former President of the United States he is somebody who has spent a lot of time thinking about these issues, and he certainly is entitled to share those views in public or in private with whomever he likes. At the same time, I don't think it's a surprise -- I don't think it was a surprise to anybody in that room, and I don't think it's a surprise to anybody in this room that President Bush might have some differences with President Obama when it comes to foreign policy.

Q: One of the things he is reported to have said, and I quote, is, "Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl's throat is in Gitmo, and now they're doing it on TV" -- a reference to ISIS. And the apparent argument being that the current administration has allowed a group like ISIS to become the threat that it has, that it wasn't a threat on the day George W. Bush left office. Your response?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I do think that we have made the case aggressively before, and I think it's backed up by extensive evidence that there are links between al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIL. And the fact is al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to President Bush's decision to commit significant American military resources on the ground in that country. And that is a historical fact.

But again, the fact that President Bush has a different perspective and a different philosophy when it comes to foreign policy is just a well-known difference. In the minds of many people, it's the principal reason that President Obama is sitting in the Oval Office right now.

Q: But how do you reckon with the historical fact that al Qaeda in Iraq was effectively vanquished by the time the Bush-Cheney administration left office, and that it has been on President Obama's watch that we now have ISIS, the people who are beheading people on TV?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, this is a long sort of --

Q: You brought up historical facts. You wanted to go back farther than I just did. So --

MR. EARNEST: Well, and I guess what I'm saying is -- I guess you're making the case that it started there and it looked like it was gone is a testament to President Bush's leadership. The fact is, I'm not sure that it was gone. I think that this is something that took root in Iraq. And what we're going to need is we're going to need a strong central government that will act with the support of the United States and our coalition partners to root out this extremist influence that is threatening to divide that country.

And we're pleased with the progress that Prime Minister Abadi has made just in his short tenure in office. And that's a testament to the success that we believe that Iraq can have if its leaders are willing to set aside their sectarian differences and try to unite that country to face down that threat.

Chris.

Q: Thanks, Josh. Just a couple of quick things. And with regard to the hostage families, and we know that this is under review, and the President has expressed his own concern about some of the complaints that the family members have made, does the President ever make phone calls to the families of hostages prior to either their death or them being released? And if so, under what circumstances?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Chris, we take each of these situations on an individual basis. And there have been circumstances where the President has communicated directly with the families after their loved ones have been killed. There are also situations where the President has met directly with the families either here at the White House or when the President has been traveling. You'll recall that after the -- back in January, after the State of the Union address, the President had the opportunity to meet with the family of Saeed Abedini in Boise, Idaho.

And again, that is an indication that we take each of these situations individually, and the President was able to use that opportunity -- it was a short visit -- but it was an opportunity for him to convey to the family directly and in person that securing the release of their loved one is a priority for him and one that he's focused on and hasn't forgotten.

And the reaction that we saw from that meeting I think was indicative of the fact that the President's conversation with them had the intended effect; that they were heartened by the fact that the President of the United States was aware of the suffering of that family and how much they missed their loved one. And they were pleased that the U.S. government was going to great lengths to try to secure the return of their family member.

Q: It also raised some emotions, though, with families who do have hostages who are currently being held. And what would be the reason not to reach out to these families?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I would say that each of these families are in touch with the federal government. And the Obama administration and the U.S. government feels an obligation to make sure that those families understand exactly what their government is doing to try to rescue -- or secure the return of their loved one.

And there's a policy review process that's underway right now to see if that process can be further refined and reformed to make it more effective and to better meet the needs of the families that are in this very difficult situation. And so we're going to await the conclusion of that policy review process before weighing in too definitively here.

Q: And in terms of the review, going over to the hacked emails, I just want to make sure I understand fully. Either in the unclassified emails -- well, let's start with that. Have there been any conversations, any adjustments, any memos that have gone out suggesting -- we all have said whether we're in government or not; don't put anything in an email that you wouldn't want out there. But have there been any formal adjustments or informal conversations had about content and emails? Especially these unclassified emails.

MR. EARNEST: Well, as it relates to unclassified email, I do think that we're all mindful of that admonition. But at the same time, we're also mindful of the fact that -- and I know our computer security experts are mindful of the fact that the use of email is critical to the success of our operation. And we need to be able to communicate with our colleagues and with our counterparts in other governments, and communicate with the American people outside of the government.

So this is, I think, an example where the White House has to assume some risk. We know that there are many people out there, some of whom are talented and creative, and are willing to devote significant time and resources to trying to intrude on the White House network. And what we do to mitigate that risk is we hire and work closely with computer security experts that can help us try to defeat those intrusion efforts.

And this is something that's always evolving. The IT space is one that's characterized by frequent innovation and disruption. And we're mindful of the need to continue to adapt to those threats.

Q: So no guidance has gone out since that hacking?

MR. EARNEST: I'm not aware of any guidance that is related to content that is traded on the White House email system.

Q: And on the classified side, understanding that a lot of classified briefings the President gets are either in person or on paper, have there been any adjustments? Or what is the level of concern on the classified side?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think our computer security professionals remain just as vigilant about protecting the classified security network that's used by U.S. government officials, including by officials here at the White House.

I will clarify one thing that we've said in the past, which is that the activity of concern that we announced back in the fall was limited to the unclassified network at the White House. There is no evidence at this point that this activity of concern was detected on the classified network.

But we continue to be very vigilant about the measures that are in place to protect the classified network, too, I think for obvious reasons -- that the information that's transmitted on that network is even more sensitive and it's even more important that we take the necessary steps to protect it.

Q: So just a final question. So any adjustments that have been made as a result of this breach are on the technical side and not on the employee or not on government personnel side?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, I'm not aware of any briefings or guidance or any other advice that anyone has received here about the content of their emails. We certainly are all well aware of the risk that is posed from those who are seeking to intrude on the White House computer network. But I'm not aware of any specific changes about content that's transmitted on the network.

Richard.

Q: Thank you, Josh. Two quick questions. First one on Syria. Multiple reports talk about rebels gaining over the governmental forces in the north, in particular, al Nusra, al Qaeda militants getting together. Can the White House -- what's the assessment of the White House on this?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I've seen some of those public reports. I don't have a new assessment from the U.S. government to share with you. We have been concerned for a number of years now about the way that the Assad regime's failed leadership has created so much instability in that country that we see that there are extremist organizations that are trying to secure a foothold in that chaos. And we're very concerned about that. And we're concerned about the impact that that has not just for countries across the region; we're concerned for the impact that has on the U.S. national security as well.

So we're monitoring the situation closely. Obviously, our coalition partners who are involved in this effort to defeat ISIL are mindful of the efforts that extremists are taking to try to establish a safe haven in Syria.

The other thing that is underway through the Department of Defense is an effort to train and equip moderate Syrian opposition fighters so that they can defend themselves both from the extremists but also from the Assad regime that's trying to decimate them. But there's no doubt that what's -- that the chaos in Syria right now is something that we continue to be focused on and quite concerned about.

Q: But nothing new on Assad grab on power?

MR. EARNEST: No new assessment to share with you from here today.

Q: And quickly, on Freddie Gray, again, quickly. We in Canada are going to follow closely -- the funeral is in Baltimore, and I just want to follow up to April's comment on the fact that -- she gave all the example in Ferguson, in New York, Cleveland. Just for our foreign audience, what's the President and the White House perspective on what is happening? Is it purely a racist behavior being exposed like that?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Richard, I think what it is, is that it's something that's hard to generalize. And again, I'm going to start by saying that it's the view of the President and it's the view of the administration that the vast majority of law enforcement officers all across the United States do an excellent job. And they pursue their work with professionalism and the kind of fairness that we expect from those in authority, particularly when it comes to the authority of law enforcement officers.

And these are individuals who are putting their lives on the line -- their life on the line to protect the communities that they serve. And that's something that we respect and honor.

At the same time, there are examples of some communities across the country where the level of trust between the community and law enforcement has been ruptured. And it requires leadership on the part of elected officials, on the part of leaders in the community, on the part of law enforcement officers, both rank-and-file and leadership, to try to address that trust -- or lack of trust, as the case may be.

And I think what everybody in those situations recognizes is that that lack of trust doesn't serve the interest of anybody, and that enhancing trust is something that benefits law enforcement because it's a little easier for them to do their job. They can get the assistance and cooperation of local members of the community when they're trying to do their work, when they're trying to fight crime. They can also be operating in an environment that's safer for them.

At the same time, what people who live in these communities want is they want a law enforcement agency and law enforcement officers that are going to protect them from the bad guys. And they want to be able to trust that those law enforcement officers are doing the right thing for the right reasons.

And that's why the President continues to be optimistic that these kinds of challenges are challenges that can be overcome, but it's going to require a lot of work, and it's going to require serious commitment by people at the local level, because each of these communities and each of these situations is different. But what these individuals can count on, or what leaders in these communities can count on, both in law enforcement and in the community, is the support of an Obama administration that's committed to sharing best practices and facilitating agreements that will build trust in these communities, because we recognize the positive impact it can have on protecting civil rights, but also the positive impact it can have on fighting crime.

Q: What about the Ferguson DOJ report that specified some of the practices in the Ferguson police department were based on race? I mean, you say you don't want to generalize, but we're getting some of the reports that are saying that race is a factor.

MR. EARNEST: I'm saying that obviously I'm not going to quibble with the findings of that report. I'll I'm saying is that the most effective and constructive way for us to confront these challenges is to examine each situation individually and to try to address the unique challenges in each community.

Jared.

Q: Josh, just one question. Is the White House concerned at all that China may be blocking Taiwan's participation in the Nepal earthquake relief efforts? It seems like this is something -- just in the context of both the earthquake and the visit of Prime Minister Abe tomorrow.

MR. EARNEST: Jared, I haven't seen any of those reports, but let me look into that for you and maybe we can get you something on it.

Steve.

Q: The President has given a number of interviews recently with VICE News, David Simon, Sanjay Gupta, and Hank Green with YouTube. And in all those, he's sort of articulated new thinking about marijuana and the drug war, but he hasn't really articulated a new policy that he specifically wants Congress to enact. But he sort of said, maybe at some point Congress should do something. Is he going to be looking for a new DEA chief to help him with that? Is that something that he wants Loretta Lynch to sort of help come up with a new deal policy, something that reflects his new thinking?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Steve, I'd differentiate between two things. One is, I think our policy, as it relates to the criminalization of marijuana, is a policy that I don't anticipate is going to change. But what the President does believe is in need of some reform is broader criminal justice reform; that we take another look at how we manage -- or how those who have been convicted of crimes related to marijuana and other drug offenses are treated by the system.

And there's some evidence -- and I think in the minds of some people, some moral factors -- about whether or not those who have been convicted of non-violent drug offenses are being treated fairly. And that is something that the President believes merits some reform and some examination, and I'm confident that the new Attorney General will have an important voice in that process. I'm also gratified that there are indications that Democrats and Republicans in Congress seem to think this is an important area that's badly in need of some reform. And the administration continues to be interested in engaging with Democrats and Republicans to try to pursue it.

Q: Does he see -- one of the reasons why he's sought out some of these interviews is he seeing it now as a moment where he can actually get something done on this issue, whether it be Rand Paul supporting it, other Republicans that he's mentioned, maybe with the changing politics? What's brought about his sort of newfound interest in taking on this issue, which he really hadn't made a priority in his first term?

MR. EARNEST: Well, this is something that the President has talked about for some time; I remember even in some of the Democratic primary presidential debates back in 2007 where this was an issue that was discussed. So this is something that's been on the President's mind for quite some time.

I think there are a couple of factors that influence the way in which it's being pursued right now. The first is that in the President's first term, when he took office, we obviously were facing the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and there were, frankly, a couple of things that were higher on the priority list at that point -- saving the economy among them.

The second thing is that we have seen newfound interest I think from some Republicans on Capitol Hill, and we welcome it. I don't mean that as a backhanded compliment; I mean that as a credit to their willingness to take a look at a difficult problem that could have some -- could be complicated politically. But pursuing it in a way that ensures more justice for our citizens is what our elected officials are supposed to do.

So we certainly welcome the input and contribution from other people who recognize that this is a needed area of reform. And the White House and the President himself looks forward to working on a legislative solution to this problem.

Q: On a slightly different issue, the AUMF that the President sent up to Congress a while back, it seems to be stalled. I talked to a number of senators last week on the Foreign Relations Committee. It doesn't seem like they're any closer to actually having a markup or advancing that. What would that say if the Congress can't actually come together on a language to fight ISIS?

MR. EARNEST: It would be quite a disappointment. The President has asked Congress to play their rightful role in determining how and when to use military force; that obviously that power rests principally with the Commander-in-Chief, as it should. But there is an important role for Congress to play, and our founders did envision Congress playing a role in constraining to a certain extent the power and authority of the executive branch when it came to these issues, and our founders thought that that would be an effective way to run the country.

And unfortunately, we haven't seen a willingness on the part of leaders in Congress to confront this issue, and the President is certainly disappointed that they haven't. It has not had an impact on our ability to take the steps that are necessary to protect the American people, but it does raise concerns about members of Congress using their authority in a responsible way. And we're hopeful that this is something that, even though it does seem to have slipped down on the priority list in Congress, that Congress will at some point make a decision to raise it back up and try to fulfill the responsibility that they have in this matter.

Alexis.

Q: Josh, one quick question on the emails. You were talking about the understanding that the White House is perpetually a target. But I wanted to ask you, does the President believe because he is the first President who so publicly has desired as President to use electronic communication, that his use of that has enhanced the White House as a target for either intelligence-gathering or actual malicious hacking?

MR. EARNEST: I think that's hard to say. I think that the White House has already been the top priority for a lot of actors out there in terms of trying to intrude on the network. Does the fact that the President occasionally use his email make the target more attractive? It probably does. But I think it was already viewed as a top priority and opportunity for rogue actors around the globe anyway.

So I'm not sure that that had a material impact on the kind of investment that we've seen from some of these actors and organizations in this effort.

Q: And just to reiterate what I think you were saying earlier, just to clarify, nothing about the incidents recently has persuaded the President to change his habits?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion of the President's use of email.

Q: But I thought you were trying to discourage the idea when you were talking to Chris that that had occurred?

MR. EARNEST: Chris was asking me about the White House staff, I believe, and the way that we were -- about the direction that we had received in terms of using email. There has been no -- at least that I'm aware of, and maybe I missed the memo; hopefully not -- about the way that White House staff use email and what sort of information is communicated in that email.

Q: So your answer to her question is specific just to staff, not to anything related to the President of the United States?

MR. EARNEST: Yes, I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion about the President's use of email.

Q: And one other follow-up. Although you do not want to indicate anything about the perpetrators -- or the suspected perpetrators of the incidents last fall, can you say whether the motive has been determined to be intelligence-gathering -- sophisticated intelligence gathering?

MR. EARNEST: I don't know if a specific motive has been determined. Presumably it's not a commercial motive, because -- although maybe it is. I'm not sure that any motive has been determined at this point.

Julie, I'll give you the last one.

Q: Thanks, Josh. On the Abe visit, do you expect any concrete agreements between the U.S. and Japan on the outstanding issues that separate the two countries, not the whole TPP framework but just the U.S. and Japan? And how important does the President think that is to getting the rest of that agreement through? In other words, do they have to come to some sort of understanding here tomorrow in order to make progress on the broader TPP?

MR. EARNEST: There are some additional bilateral negotiations that will take place between the President and Prime Minister Abe that are directly related to the TPP agreement. And we've made substantial progress in narrowing some of the differences in those negotiations, but there are still some significant gaps that remain. I do not anticipate that all of those gaps will be bridged in the context of the discussion tomorrow, but I'm confident that they'll get extensive, high-level attention.

To answer the other part of your question, it is clear that the broader TPP negotiations would build some momentum if the United States and Japan can succeed in resolving some of the differences that remain. And that's one of the reasons that we are working so assiduously to try to bridge those gaps.

Q: And just on one other issue, on the Abe visit. There have been some reports in Japan that the Prime Minister is exuding some more control on news media there and trying to control reporting, control staffing decisions. Is that an issue that the President is concerned about and is planning to raise with Prime Minister Abe while he's here?

MR. EARNEST: I don't know if that will come up in their discussions. There is a long history of a free and independent professional media in Japan. And the President obviously believes that that similar tradition that exists here in the United States is one that has served our country and our government quite well. But I'll let Prime Minister Abe speak for himself in terms of what impact he believes that that has had on his country's government.

Thanks, everybody.

END 2:24 P.M. EDT