will obamacare be overturned

mr. earnest: if you have some opportunity to turn to somebody for inspiration, doesn't eric schultz immediately come to mind? (laughter.) the press: eric schultzcomes to my mind. mr. earnest: me, too. me, too. nice to see youall this afternoon. i do not have anyannouncements at the top,

so we can go straightto your questions. josh, do you wantto fire away? the press: sure. thanks, josh. will the united statessend a delegation to the funeral of fidel castro? mr. earnest: josh, ican tell you that the president has decided notto send a presidential delegation to attend thememorial service today.

i can tell you, however,that deputy national security advisor benrhodes will attend the service, as willthe top u.s. diplomat in cuba,jeff delaurentis. those of you who havebeen following this story closely over the lastcouple of years know that mr. rhodes has played aleading role in crafting the normalization policythat president obama announced abouttwo years ago.

he has been the principalinterlocutor with the cuban government from thewhite house in crafting this policy andimplementing it successfully. as a part of thoseresponsibilities, he has the occasion to travelto cuba occasionally to further implementthis policy. he actually was alreadyplanning to travel to cuba this week, so in additionto the meetings that he

already has on hisschedule with the cuban government officials andwith officials at the u.s. embassy, he also will beattending the service that the cuban government hasplanned for this evening. and as i mentioned, he'll be attending with the top u.s. diplomat on the island,ambassador delaurentis. the press: so i guess itbegs the question that if two high-ranking u.s.

officials -- nationalsecurity official who worked on cuba, theambassador -- are attending, how isthat not a u.s. delegation? mr. earnest: well, josh,there's a formal process where the president woulddesignate a presidential delegation to travel tocuba specifically to represent the unitedstates at a foreign event. sometimes it's aninauguration; sometimes

it's a coronation;sometimes it's a funeral. that will not be takingplace this time. but the united states willbe represented at the event by our top diplomaton the island and by a senior white houseofficial who will be traveling to cuba. the press: what was thethinking behind not designating aformal delegation? mr. earnest: obviously,josh, so much of the u.s.

diplomatic relationshipwith cuba is quite complicated. there are many aspects ofthe u.s.-cuba relationship that were characterizedby a lot of conflict and turmoil not just duringthe castro regime, but we continue to have somesignificant concerns about the way the cubangovernment currently operates, particularlywith regard to protecting the basic human rightsof the cuban people.

so we believe that thiswas an appropriate way for the united states to showour commitment to an ongoing, future-orientedrelationship with the cuban people. and this is an appropriateway to show respect, to participate in the eventsthat are planned for this evening, while alsoacknowledging some of the differences that remainbetween the two countries. the press: josh, doesthe president view

flag-burning to be aprotected act of free speech, and does he feelthat it should remain that way? mr. earnest: the freedomthat we all have to express ourselves in theway that we choose to do so is protected bythe united states constitution. similar freedoms relatedto the practice of religion, speech, theinstitution of journalism

are also enshrined in ourconstitution and are worth protecting. the need to protect thoserights is in place to protect speech andexpression not just when we agree with it but alsowhen we find it offensive. many americans -- the vastmajority of americans, myself included -- findthe burning of the flag offensive. but we have aresponsibility as a

country to carefullyprotect our rights that are enshrined inthe constitution. i know this is abipartisan sentiment. i know that there areconservatives on the supreme court that sharethe view that i just articulated. i know that there aredemocrats and republicans in the united statescongress that share the view that i'vejust articulated.

and it certainly isconsistent with the kind of governing agenda thatpresident obama has pursued here in the whitehouse during his eight years in the oval office. the press: we passed theright to burn the flag if one chooses to do so aspart of a broader set of basic freedoms. you mentioned the freedomof the press and others. is it fair then to saythat the president is

concerned, when he seesthe president-elect saying we need to removecitizenship from people who choose to engage inthat activity, about a rolling back of some basicfreedoms under the next administration? mr. earnest: josh, i'lljust make an observation that many of you havemade, which is that this is not the first thingthat the president-elect has said or tweeted that

president obama disagrees with. so i will let thepresident-elect and his team discuss the words that populate his twitter feed. they can explain or defend those positions or those views. what i can do is my bestto articulate to you the president's views and thepriority that he places on a smooth andeffective transition.

and if i spend ourdaily interactions here itemizing and criticizingall of the things that the president-elect does thatare different than what president obama hasdone, that is going to materially undermine ourability to engage in a smooth and effectivetransition. and since that's thepriority right now, since the election washeld, i'll let the president-elect's teamspeak to the wisdom and

views and policy positionsthat are articulated by the president-elect. the press: policy aside,a number of times in the last week or so you'venoted that the method that these positions havecome out from the president-electhave been twitter. are you suggesting thatmaybe it would be wiser, given the stature ofthe office, for the president-elect to betweeting less or to be

finding another way tosort of communicate some of these positions? mr. earnest: i don'tmean to do that. i think what i've observedis that, since the election, this seems tohave been the principal method that thepresident-elect has used to communicate with theamerican public and to communicate with all ofyou, with the exception of at least oneoff-the-record meeting

that he held withjournalists in new york last week. so i don't mean tomake that reference pejoratively because thetruth is president obama has found twitter to bea useful mechanism for communicating with theamerican public and providing some insight toall of you about what he's thinking about. at the same time,president obama has not

relied just on twitterto communicate with the american public andinteract with all of you. over the course of thepresident's foreign trip, for example, when hetraveled around the world, meeting with worldleaders, talking about some of our highestnational security priorities, the president,over the course of that trip, convened threedifferent news conferences to answer your questionsand to speak to all of you

about those meetings andabout the way that he was representing and advancing our interests around the globe. interacting in that formwith the independent media is not just valuable, italso is part of the job. and president obama takesthat part of his job quite seriously. and it's something thatwe've done extensively during his timehere in office.

but obviously thepresident-elect and his team will have to developa communications strategy that they believe is mosteffective to informing the american public and isalso consistent with the expectations that theamerican people have about transparency andaccountability for those in positions of authority. and part of that is anindividual in a position of authority submitting oreven subjecting themselves

to skeptical questioning from an independent news media. that's a valuable andcritically important part of our democracy, and, infact, the success of our democracy depends on it. roberta. the press: thepresident-elect is going to name -- or nominatecongressman price as his hhs secretary, andcongressman price has for a long time been promoting

an alternative to obamacare. and i'm wondering what thewhite house's assessment is of his ideas about thealternatives that he has presented to obamacare. mr. earnest: i don't knowif a formal announcement has come from the president-elect's team, but -- the press: there has. mr. earnest:there has been? the press: yes.

mr. earnest: okay. so what is clear is thatthe president-elect has chosen to nominate someoneto be his secretary of health and human serviceswho is an ardent opponent of the affordable care actand somebody who says he is committed torepealing it. we have heard commentsfrom the president-elect and from congressman priceabout some of the ideas that they say wouldwork if implemented.

and i spent a little timeworking with my staff today to develop what ithink are some metrics that all of you and theamerican public should apply in evaluating someof the proposals that may be put forward bythe other side. here's why thisis important. since the day thepresident signed the affordable care act intolaw in march of 2010, he indicated an openness toworking with republicans

or democrats to implementideas for further strengthening the law. so the president hasalways welcomed good ideas either from democrats orrepublicans to strengthen the law. the problem has been thatthe only kinds of ideas that have been put forwardby the republicans, to the extent that they have putforward any ideas -- and there have not been many-- but when they have,

they actually have beenideas for undermining the law, not strengthening it. and those were primarilymethods of political communication making apolitical argument, not for actuallygoverning the country. but as the presidentobserved in the context of a couple of those newsconferences i referred to earlier, reality has away of intruding once you enter the oval office andyou assume the awesome

responsibility ofgoverning the greatest country in the world. so i'll move expeditiouslyhere, but i can whittle it down to five metrics thatyou can use to evaluate their proposal, and ithink what you should measure it against is theprogress that we've made through the affordablecare act in the six years or so that it'sbeen in effect. so let's start.

number one -- this is theone that you guys have written about the most. since the affordable careact went into effect, 20 million americans havegotten health insurance. and according to a recentsurvey, 91.1 percent of americans now hashealth insurance. that is an insured ratethat's higher than it's ever been. so when these new ideascome forward, it's

important to evaluatewhether or not -- what impact that would haveon the percentage of americans that have healthinsurance, because, after all, expanding access tohealth care coverage was one of the principal goals of the affordable care act. number two -- anotherprincipal goal of the affordable care act washolding down the rapid growth in healthcare costs.

and this was a problemthat has bedeviled policymakers for at leasta generation, is that the growth in health carecosts was higher than the growth of otheraspects of our economy. and the affordable careact has actually had a positive impact in holdingdown that growth in health care costs. and let me just give you the best metric to evaluate.

in 2016 -- fiscal year2016, which just ended a couple of monthsago -- the growth in employer-based health insurance premiums was 3.4 percent. that is much lower than itwas before the affordable care act went into effect. in fact, between 2010 andthe decade before the affordable care act wentinto effect, employer premiums grew on averageof about 7.9 percent.

so we've cut the growth inhealth care costs by more than half. so, again, evaluating theproposals from the other side should take a look atwhat impact they have in limiting the growthin health care costs. and again, in 2016, thegrowth in employer-based insurance premiums was 3.4percent, which is at or near all-time lows. the third thing that isamong the benefits of the

affordable care act are awhole range of consumer protections, many of whicheven republicans say that they like. so the proposals putforward by the other side should be evaluated basedon whether or not those proposals remain in place. some of these includeensuring that americans can no longer bediscriminated against because they havepreexisting conditions.

before the affordablecare act, women could be charged more by theirhealth insurance company for no other reason than the fact that they are women. before the affordable careact went into place, many americans were subject tolifetime limits on the benefits they couldcollect from their insurance company. the problem for a lot of-- for many families is

that if kids were sick atan early age, by age 10 or so, they would essentiallybe reaching the cap on the lifetime benefits thatthey could collect from their parents' insurancecompany, which basically meant that these kidswere going to be without insurance. those caps were eliminatedbecause of the affordable care act. and we'll have to evaluatewhether or not those who

vow to repeal theaffordable care act can protect those importantconsumer protections that are now in place. the other one that'sgotten a lot of attention is that, thanks to theaffordable care act, young americans can stay ontheir parents' insurance until age 26, and thatprovides an important buffer for manyyoung americans. when they get out ofcollege before they get

settled in a job over thelong term, they can enjoy the protection of beingon their parents' health insurance. so another consumerprotection enjoyed and praised by democratsand republicans. we'll see if republicanscan do the important work to keep it, and theirability to do so should be part of the way in which their proposals are evaluated.

just two more. the first is, what impactwill the law have on medicare? the affordable care actwent into effect and the life of medicare wasextended by 11 years. there's still more workto do to strengthen and extend the life ofmedicare, but you'll recall that when presidentobama took office, the prediction was that themedicare trust fund was

going to run out of moneyby 2017; 2017 is a month from now, and the life ofmedicare has been extended because of the affordablecare act by more than a decade. so it certainly will beimportant to ask questions if and when there is aproposal from the other side what impact theirplan will have on strengthening medicare. and the last thing -- andi cite this only because

this is what republicansmost like to talk about -- and that's the deficit --what impact will their proposal haveon the deficit? what i can tell you thatthe cbo has concluded is that the impact of theaffordable care act on the deficit is to reduce thedeficit by $3 trillion in the next 20 years --trillion, with a "t" -- a $3 trillion reduction inthe deficit over the next 20 years.

so that certainly setsa pretty high bar for evaluating the budgetimpact of a proposal from the other side. but that is an importantmetric, one that republicans havelong prioritized. and if and when theyput forward their own proposal, it should bemeasured against the kind of progress that thecountry has made under obamacare.

so i appreciate youindulging me with a long answer, but this is thekind of thing that i can certainly understand whythis may not end up in the stories about mr. price's-- congressman price's nomination today, but atsome point, if he makes good on his word, at somepoint, maybe in the next year or so, he will bestanding at this podium, in this room, in front ofall of you, unveiling a new health care plan.

and so i hope -- i'll becounting on all of you to just take a look at mynotes and if you are -- or take a look at notes fromthis briefing -- and maybe it can serve as somequestions that are worth asking about thenew proposal. the press: so i don'twant to go on too long -- mr. earnest: i alreadyhave, which i apologize. the press: but have youevaluated congressman price's proposalby these metrics?

or do you have -- doesthe white house have an evaluation of hisproposals, which have been out there for a long time? mr. earnest: well, withall due respect to congressman price, whathe's going to learn is that when he's thesecretary of health and human services, it will behis job to implement the president's plan,not his own. so we'll certainly take aclose look and we'll be

interested to see whatproposal is put forward by the trump administration. but i certainly have laidout for you the progress that we have made underobamacare, and we'll see if "trumpcare" measures up. michelle. the press: thanks. so in the past, you'veexpressed optimism and the president himselfexpressed optimism after the first time he met withpresident-elect trump in

the oval office thathe may keep parts of obamacare. now, with tom price comingin as the head of hhs, do you still havethat optimism? or do you think that a lotof this -- republicans, and these people inparticular, are aware of the metrics that youcited, but there's still that mantra ofrepeal and replace. so do you still have thatoptimism, even with this

pick that is coming? mr. earnest: look, ithink time will tell. i think what i said toroberta certainly applies -- that with all duerespect to congressman price, his responsibilitywill be to implement president trump's healthcare plan, not congressman price's health care plan. and we'll see howit measures up. there will be anopportunity for us

to evaluate it. and, look, michelle, wehave said all along, as i mentioned from the day thepresident signed this bill into law, the presidentindicated an openness to good ideas, includingfrom republicans, for strengthening ourhealth care system and strengthening theaffordable care act. those ideas didn'treally materialize. but president trumpis taking office with

certainly what he feels isstrong support from the country to make somesignificant changes, including making changes to the affordable care act. and he will -- we'll seehow his proposals measure up to the progress that wehave made in the united states, thanks to theaffordable care act. the press: but given whatis being said now and by whom, do you stillhave that optimism?

does the administrationhave an optimism that this is going to be a goodidea by your standards? mr. earnest: look, i'mreluctant to predict exactly what's going tohappen under the new administration. they'll have anopportunity to put forward their own ideas,and they'll have an opportunity to put forwardideas that they think, for example, in this case,will strengthen the health

care system inthis country. and fortunately, we've hadan opportunity to try it the way that presidentobama advocates and we've got some statistics thatindicate the real progress that we've made, theway the system has been strengthened becauseof these reforms. we'll see if reformsimplemented by the trump administration measure up. the press: often whenyou're -- i mean, you keep

being asked about the samekinds of things and you always add reality hasa way of intruding. mr. earnest: it does. the press: so it soundslike you have a lot of doubt that what's beingsaid out there is actually going to come to fruition. and does that include thiswhole flag-burning thing? mr. earnest: i think whati'm trying to convey, and i think what the presidentis trying to convey when

he talks about theintrusion of reality is he's talking about hisexperience in the job. and president obama'sexperience is that the job is harder than it looks,particularly even harder than it looks when you'recampaigning for it. and reality has a way ofintruding on your ability to do everything thatyou'd like to do. now, i think presidentobama's record, doing many of the things that hewould like to do, is quite

good, and the affordablecare act is as good an example of that as any. but you certainly can't doeverything that you would like to do. and look, that's beenthe experience of all 44 presidents of theunited states. each of them hasencountered a reality that they may not haveanticipated that has limited their ability orchecked their ability to

do exactly what they want. some of that is builtinto our system. that's part of ademocracy and the need to compromise. in other cases, it's afunction of real-world events, because, afterall, nobody is governing in a vacuum. i think that contributesto my reluctance to predict exactly what thetrump administration will

do and how presidenttrump will act and what priorities presidenttrump will pursue. i'll let his teamspeak to that. and i think it's difficultto predict primarily because as all 44presidents of the united states have learned,reality has a way of intruding on some of therhetoric that sounded really good duringthe campaign. the press: when you hearrepeated defenses of

donald trump statementsthat people who burn flags should be prosecuted, isthat not much of a concern to the administrationright now? mr. earnest: well, i thinkthere is a pretty strong bipartisan consensusacross the country that the constitutional rightto freedom of expression is one that'sworth protecting. and so, again, part ofthat free expression is being able to say whateveryou want on twitter.

so there's a little ironyassociated with this particular situation. but freedom of expression,freedom of religion, freedom of the press --those are freedoms that the press: i guess thisbubbling up again over flag-burning -- itdoesn't bother you? mr. earnest: well, again,it certainly is not consistent with the kindof priority that president obama has placed onprotecting constitutional

-- our freedomsas citizens. so i'm not standing hereprepared to defend or agree with thosestatements. but again, this is notthe first time that the president-elect has saidor tweeted something that is quite differentthan president obama's approach. it was the hallmark of hiscampaign -- he ran vowing to aggressively do thingsdifferently than president

obama has, and we'll see how it works. olivier. the press: thanks, josh. back on the castro event. you're not suggestingthat mr. rhodes and mr. delaurentis areattending this in a private capacity, right? they are representingthe united states? mr. earnest:that's correct.

and i think if i wasunclear about that, yes, they will be representingthe united states at the memorial servicethis evening. the press: during thistransition period, when the president makeschanges to, say, the number of troops in iraqand syria, or makes other significant nationalsecurity decisions, do you loop in thepresident-elect's team? is there a mechanism or astructure for saying, hey,

by the way -- notsubmitting it for approval, but just to say,hey, by the way, we're going to be moving "x"number of troops from here to there? and is there a thresholdfor what kinds of decisions get read outto the incoming team? mr. earnest: well,olivier, as you point out, there is one president andone commander-in-chief at a time, and presidentobama's ability to make

those kinds of decisionsabout his view of the best interests of the countryremain unconstrained by the election. he is going to make hisown determination about what's best for thecountry and he'll abide, of course, by all theconstitutional legal constraints that are inplace, as he's done for more than seven years now. but he'll be president ofthe united states until

january 20th, in whichhe'll hand off that responsibility topresident trump. one of the prioritiesthat this president has articulated is acommitment to a smooth and effective transition. and that transition willbe more smooth and more effective if thepresident-elect and his team has some insight intothe kinds of decisions that are being madein real time as the

president-elect preparesto take office. so it's hard for me togive you a lot of detail about what standard isestablished for something being needed to becommunicated to the president-elect's team. but there certainly is aninterest in helping the president-elect's teamunderstand what kinds of decisions are being madeso that they will be prepared to lead thecountry on january 20th.

the press: -- a slightlydifferent take -- the press: is there amechanism other than the pdb, the intelligencebriefings, for reading in the president-elect's teamon major national security issues? mr. earnest: well, thereis a transition process. so, for example, thepresident-elect has designated a landing teamto work closely with the national security counciland the department of

defense and other nationalsecurity agencies to effect a smoothtransition. so that certainly is apotential mechanism for providing insightinto those decisions. and then, as we'vediscussed, there obviously is some communication thatis ongoing between the president and thepresident-elect directly. i can't speak to whetheror not some of the national security issuesthat you've alluded to

came up in thoseconversations or not, but that certainly would beanother mechanism for that information being transmitted. ron. the press: so on theaffordable care act, is the president -- are yousaying that the president believes that realityis going to hit the new administration and they'regoing to be able to see that they can'tdismantle this? mr. earnest: well, i thinkthe point that i'm making,

ron, just to try to beas direct as i can about this, is that it's onething to use rhetoric on the campaign trail thatmay poll well among a certain segment of thepopulation, and saying at a rally of thousands ofconservatives who are ardent political opponentsof president obama -- to stand at a podium likethis and say, i'm going to repeal obamacare. it's yet another thing toenter office and be faced

with the reality that oneimpact of the affordable care act is that the rateof americans who are uninsured is at ahistoric, all-time low; or to see that the growth inemployer-based premiums is actually lower than it'sbeen in quite some time; or that these kinds ofconsumer protections are actually the kinds ofthings that democrats and republicans alike allacross the country strongly support.

so the idea of repealingthe law once you consider the benefits and once youhave to reckon with the benefits becomesmore difficult. the press: how engaged isthe president in trying to make this argument nowon a practical matter? is he in touch with -- ishe in touch with the new administration? is he in touch withfolks on the hill? what is he doing to try

and make this case, if anything? or is he just resignedto the fact that they're going to change it? mr. earnest: well, again,i think as i've tried to lay out here, theirpromise to change it i think is going tobe challenging. if they're at allconcerned about trying to expand health carecoverage, or save people money, or protect peoplefrom insurance companies

that may not have theirinterests at heart, or to extend the lifetime ofmedicare, or to cut the deficit -- if they don'tshare those priorities, then it will be prettyeasy to come in and just knock this down andput in some other plan. i'm not really sure whatthe benefits would be, but they'll have an opportunity to make that case. i think that's my point.

with regard to thepresident, he has had a handful of conversationswith the president-elect, including inthe oval office. i'm not going to speakto the content of those conversations. there are plenty of verystrong supporters of the affordable care act whocontinue to serve in the united states congress. and many of the kinds ofchanges that are being

discussed by someconservatives would require congressionalapproval, so -- the press: but i askedbecause i think there's -- among some of thepresident's supporters, there's a concern that inhis effort to create a smooth transition heappears to be not fighting back as much of his legacyis about to be dismantled or certainlyseverely threatened. mr. earnest: iguess my point is --

the press: and on thisissue, that's why i asked specifically what is hedoing to protect obamacare or the affordablecare act? is my characterization -- mr. earnest: well, i guessthe point that i'm trying to make is that the mosteffective way for the affordable care act tosucceed is to implement it effectively. and i think many of themetrics here that we have

laid out indicate howeffectively we have implemented it. there have clearly beensome highly publicized bumps in the road, and thefailure of the website on the first day of itslaunch was not an insignificant one. but i think the resultsspeak for themselves. the press: more generally,in the final weeks, what are the president'spriorities?

what does he realisticallythink he can accomplish? and given your statementyou keep coming back to about how the realitiesof the office set in, i imagine there's a lot ofreality that's setting in now, too -- mr. earnest: sure, sure. the press: -- at the backend of this whole thing. and i think when askedabout this before, you talked about nationalsecurity and those sort of

ongoing importantobligations that the president has. but what else is he reallytrying to accomplish in the final weeks? mr. earnest: well, therecertainly are some legislative prioritiesthat we're trying to make some progress on. there are many thingsthat are going to be left undone, unfortunately --things like immigration

reform, probablycriminal justice reform. and that's morethan a little -- the press: sowhat's realistic? mr. earnest: well, thefirst thing is we've got to -- congress has gotto act on a budget. and if they don't act bydecember 9th, we'll have a government shutdown. i don't thinkanybody wants that. we certainly don'twant that from here.

and more than that, wedon't just want to avoid a shutdown,; we also want tomake sure that our men and women at the department ofdefense have the resources that they need, even inthis challenging time, to succeed in their missionto protect the country. and there has been aproposal floated by some on capitol hill thatthey might consider an extension of the continuing resolution to may.

that would be a bigproblem, and the reason that would be a problem isbecause it would hamstring some of the efforts thatare underway at the department of defense toprotect the country and to start new efforts, newweapons systems and other production increases thatare required to ensure that our men and women inuniform have the resources that they need and theequipment that they need to protect the country.

there also is an importantfight underway in iraq right now against isil. and there are substantialresources that have been committed to that fight. the united states hasa very specific role. it's different than therole that our troops were -- or different than themission that our troops were given whenpresident bush was the commander-in-chief, but itstill requires resources.

president obama has made asubstantial commitment to a europeanreassurance effort. and these are the kinds-- i'm listing out these things because these arethe kinds of things that would not be addressedthrough a straight cr. and i think even thesecretary of defense can tell you how a cr throughmarch that essentially covers six months of thefiscal year is bad enough, but extending the crthrough may and having a

cr in place forthree-quarters of the year would have a reallynegative impact on the department of defense andwould undermine some of the important workthat's being done there on a regularbasis to protect the country. so congress has got aresponsibility here. we obviously prefer thatthey pass a budget. but if they resort to justa continuing resolution,

we believe that thatshould be made -- that that should be as short aspossible so that a regular appropriations bill can bepassed and the resources that our men and women need can be approved. kevin. i want to ask you aboutsouth korea and the instability that'shappening there politically right now. how does thatimpact the u.s.

relationship with what'shappening there, in particular as we make theasian pivot, as we've talked about at lengthfor quite some time? mr. earnest: well, kevin,the thing i can tell you is that the united statesand south korea have been close allies for decades. and the strength of thatalliance has persisted through democratic andrepublican administrations in the united states,and that alliance has

persisted throughdifferent administrations in the koreanpresidency as well. and that's an indicationthat the security relationship between therepublic of korea and the united states issubstantial and so important that itsupersedes political relationships. the people-to-people tiesbetween our two countries indicate just howimportant a relationship

this is, and thatcertainly supersedes politics. so the president iscommitted to our alliance and, just as importantly,our country is committed to maintaining a strongalliance between our two countries. investing in that allianceadvances the interests of both our countries andenhances the national security of bothour countries.

so obviously there is arather complicated, shall we say, domestic politicalsituation inside of south korea right now. that is a situation thatthe south korean people will grapple with. but the ongoing alliancebetween our two countries is as strong anddurable as ever. the press: has thepresident been in contact with hiscounterpart there?

mr. earnest: i'm not awarethat they have had an opportunity to speaksince september. you'll recall thatpresident obama had an opportunity to meet withpresident park in laos in early september. they spoke shortly afterthat meeting on the telephone in the hoursafter the latest nuclear test from north korea. i don't believe thatthey've spoken since then,

but we can keep youupdated on that situation. the press: what does thepresident think about david petraeus and hisability to be a secretary of state if that were tobe something the trump administrationwould consider? does the president thinkhe's the kind of man who could do that job? mr. earnest: listen, as imentioned yesterday, i've avoided speculatingon potential

obama administration -- the press: this is someonehe knows personally. mr. earnest: well, yes-- but let me finish. i'll work on somethinghere for you. the press: all right. mr. earnest:i'll try to help. let me just stipulate,though, that i'm going to -- i'm reluctant -- asi've been reluctant to speculate on potentialobama administration

personnel announcements,i'm particularly reluctant to speculate on any trumpadministration personnel announcements. but as you point out,kevin, the president does know general petraeus, andgeneral petraeus assumed some significantresponsibilities in the obama administration,including not just in the military but also when heleft the military to serve for a period of time asthe director of the cia.

and president obama hasalways admired general petraeus's commitmentto serving the country, certainly when it came toleading our men and women in uniform in a hostilesituation in iraq. at the same time,obviously general petraeus admitted to someserious crimes. and he had to pay a pricefor that, both publicly and in private -- andin his private life. but with regard to hispotential appointment as

secretary of state,we'll leave it to the president-elect and histeam to describe why general petraeus may be agood fit for that position and why he may be underconsideration for it. the press: it's certainlyfair to say the president doesn't considerhim unfit. mr. earnest: well, again,i don't think i'd pass judgment one way oranother on a potential personnel announcement.

as we've discussedearlier, general petraeus is somebody with extensiveexperience in the middle east, and he has, onoccasion, served as an informal outside advisorto senior administration officials here who havesought his advice and counsel on some of themany difficult issues that our diplomats andintelligence professionals and military leaders face in that region of the world.

that advice was notprovided through any sort of formal channel or hisservice on any sort of formal advisory board. but he, nonetheless,maintains some important relationships withofficials here in the obama administration. and that's an indicationthat he is a professional who has a lot ofexperience and knowledge. he's somebody who loveshis country and has served

his country, and he'ssomebody who, over the course of his career, hasprovided valuable advice to presidentsin both parties. but his fitness for thisposition is something that i'll allow the president-elect to determine. the press: two quick ones. any update on the possiblestrike -- i'm not sure if it's actually takingplace -- up in chicago? the seiu is having amassive strike that could

be impacting air travel. are you aware of this? and if so, what'sthe outlook? mr. earnest: i've seensome of the news reports about the potentialfor a strike among some non-unionizedworkers in chicago. i'm not aware of it havingany significant impact on air travel at this point,but we can certainly check on that for you.

i'm also not aware of anycommunication from the white house about this potential labor action. chip. on the dakota pipelinesituation, how closely is the president nowfollowing this? it really is becominga bit of a powder keg. there already has been afair amount of violence and there are some peoplewho believe there could be more with the evacuationorder from the governor

and now a large group ofveterans saying that they are going to go in andact as human shields to protect the protestors. is the president -- thereare people calling for the president to get morepersonally involved, for the administrationto get more involved. will they do that? mr. earnest: well, chip, idid see the statement from the governor.

i think the governor atsome point hastened to add that he did not anticipateforcibly removing people who are currentlyat that site. the president was askedabout this a month ago and indicated his beliefthat protestors have a responsibility toprotest peacefully. he indicated that there'san obligation for law enforcement authoritiesto show some restraint. and it's important foreverybody to do what they

can to try to avoid asituation where people are going to get hurt. so that obviouslyis a top priority. the president at the timeindicated that there was an ongoing review at thearmy corps of engineers, considering what sort of-- or i guess i should say whether additionalengagement with tribes in the area was necessarybefore moving forward with the project.

and that review determinedthat it was important for the army corps ofengineers to go back to the tribes and otheraffected populations and engage in additionalconversations with them to try to address theirconcerns about this particularinfrastructure project. so that is work that thearmy corps of engineers is engaged in. the president obviouslybelieves that it's

important for governmentagencies in a situation like this to carefullyconsider the impact of these kinds of projectson local populations. i know that this isactually often a principle that republicans -- or atleast conservatives would hold up as an importantthing for the federal government to do. and in this situation,president obama agrees. and it's important for theconcerns that are raised

by local populations to betaken into consideration when a significantgovernment action like this is beingcontemplated. the press: so has hedone anything to be more involved in this thanwhat he said a month ago? mr. earnest: the presidentis being regularly updated on the situation. and i know that there areofficials at the white house that have been intouch with the relevant

agencies, including thedepartment of interior. but i'm not aware of anyspecific presidential actions that have beentaken at this point, in part because the renewedengagement of local populations by the armycorps of engineers is consistent with what thepresident believes is an appropriate next step. the press: one of thepossibilities that was suggested a month ago wasrerouting the pipeline.

where does that stand? mr. earnest: well, again,i can't speak for the army corps in terms of thediscussions that they're having with thetribes in the area. i think the president'shope is that both sides will sit at the table ina constructive spirit and actually focus ontrying to resolve these differences asquickly as possible. and i think thepresident's view is that

it's in the interests ofboth the tribe -- the locally affected tribesand the army corps of engineers to resolve thesedifferences as soon as possible and let theproject go forward. the press: he has no plansto get more personally involved at this point? mr. earnest: at thispoint, i'm not aware of any impendingpresidential actions. but if that changeswe'll let you

know. april. the press: josh,two quick questions. are there any plans forany phone conversations or any meetings, face toface, with president obama and president-electtrump again? mr. earnest: i certainlywouldn't rule them out, but there are no --nothing is scheduled at this point. the press: nothingis scheduled.

when you say you wouldn'trule it out, could it be this week, next week, andit just happened just by happenstance? how is it happening? mr. earnest: it typicallyhappens when the president-elect telephonesthe white house and says that he would like tospeak to the president of the united states, and thepresident either gets on the phone or callshim back quickly.

the press: hashe called -- mr. earnest: i can't speak to the timing of those calls. the press: why can't you? mr. earnest: i don't know when the calls have been placed. the press: next question. but that was avalid question. next question.

how do you rate or gaugethe effectiveness of a presidential policy, aninitiative, particularly when it is dismantled,defunded, or taken apart not like you intended ororiginally placed it -- how do you gauge forlegacy purposes the effectiveness of thatpiece of policy or an initiative? mr. earnest: well, ithink, april, what i would do is i'd draw yourattention to a metaphor

that you've heard thepresident use before that he likens his service inthe oval office to a relay run, that for eight yearshe's had the baton, he's had the responsibility ofadvancing the interests of the country. he took the handoff frompresident george w. bush, and he ran as farand as fast as he could over the last eight years. but on january 20th, itwill be time for him to

hand off the baton to thenext president -- in this case it will bepresident trump. and there will be anopportunity, a very clear opportunity for people toevaluate the progress that the country has madeduring the eight years that the president wascarrying the baton. and the affordable careact is a good example. and i laid out some clearbenchmarks of the progress that our country has madein the eight years that

president obamawas in office. and what i would encourageyou to do -- and i think it's common sense -- ithink this is what people are likely to do, is tocompare the progress that our country has enjoyedunder president obama's leadership to the progressthat our country makes after president trumpmakes the changes that he's recommended. we've tried it the waythat president

obama has advocated. we certainly would haveappreciated greater cooperation withrepublicans in congress because there is more thatwe could have done to strengthen the economy andto improve our country, and even common-sensethings like an investment in infrastructure, reformof our tax code, and immigration reform, allof which would have had significant positiveeconomic benefits.

so we couldhave done more. but look, after eight years, there's no making excuses. we'll set the bar where itis, and we'll take a look at the progress that we'vemade on health care. we'll take a look at theprogress we've made on the economy -- 73 consecutivemonths of job growth, 15.5 million private sector jobs over the last 80 months.

there are a variety ofmetrics i think that will clearly indicate what kindof progress we've made under presidentobama's leadership. the american people votedfor a candidate who was promising to radicallychange all of that, and we'll have an opportunityto measure the wisdom of making those changes. the press: and for thesake of this conversation, what was the mostsignificant pieces of

policy, executive order,or anything, initiative, that the bush administration had -- george w. bush administration hadthat this administration dismantled and there was asignificant change for the better over theseeight years? mr. earnest: well, look,we've spent a lot of time talking about it, and ithink it applies here -- the affordable care act.

for a hundred years,presidents in both parties had assumed officepromising to fix the health care system toensure that consumers were better protected, toensure that more americans had access to health carecosts, to ensure that health care costs weren'tgrowing so rapidly, to strengthen medicare, whichis something that a more recent generation of presidents were faced with.

and by their ownaccounting, all those presidents failed. they weren't able to getit done because of the enormous legislativebarriers that stood in their way and because ofthe inherent complexity of overhauling a sector ofthe economy that comprises about 20 percent ofour overall economy. so it's substantial. but president obamasucceeded in doing it.

and the resultsspeak for themselves. and there will be anopportunity to evaluate whether or not the kindsof changes that president trump is recommendingactually do have a positive impact on thegoals that presidents in both parties have stated. so we can determinewhether or not the trump administration succeedsin expanding access to coverage and limiting thegrowth in health care

costs, and extendingthe life of *medicaid [medicare], and protectingconsumers and in reducing the deficit -- alltangible benefits of the we'll see if the changesthat they vow to implement will build on thatprogress and increase those benefits. and if so, president obamawill be among the first to give them creditfor doing so. but if not, i think itcertainly will once again

confirm the wisdom of theapproach that president obama has pursued. the press: itwasn't there before. i'm talking like thingslike education, or even the military, with stemcell -- different changes. what was dismantled therefrom when this president came and changed for thepositive throughout his eight years -- dismantledfrom that former administration?

mr. earnest: the formeradministration certainly was reluctant -- in somecases, unwilling -- to engage with theinternational community to fight climate change. the bush administrationfamously ensured that the united states remained oneof the holdouts from the kyoto protocol. that undermined thatcoordinated international effort to confrontclimate change.

president obamareversed that strategy. and as a result, we havemade progress in both reducing emissions andgrowing our economy. and there is a lot moreimportant work to be done on that front, and thatimportant work is going to require the internationalcommunity to cooperate in pursuit of that effort. jordan. can you tell us how thisdinner last night with president obama and thevice president and senator

reid came about, and tellus what they discussed over dinner? mr. earnest: i don't havea detailed readout to provide, primarily becauseit was a social event. and this was anopportunity for the president and the firstlady to host a private dinner in honor of senatorreid and his impending retirement. over the last eight years,the democratic leader of

the senate has been anenormously valuable partner to the president. and last night was asmall, private, social opportunity for thepresident and first lady to offer some appreciationto leader reid for his friendship, for hispartnership over the last eight years. the press: was this at allon the cr or anything else like that?

or was it just social? mr. earnest: my guess isthey probably couldn't get in and out of the roomwithout talking at least a little business, but it was primarily a social event. the press: one last thing on the castro funeral plans. i know there's thememorial service today, but there's a lot goingon -- i know the formal

funeral ceremony istaking place on sunday. is the united statessending anyone to that ceremony,y or is thisthe only event, memorial event, that is being attended by u.s. officials? mr. earnest: myunderstanding, at least the way that it's beendescribed to me is this is -- the event that thecuban government is organizing for thisevening is the event where

the united states will berepresented by the deputy national security advisorand by the top diplomat in cuba. i guess i'd refer you tothe embassy in havana for greater information aboutwhether or not there will be a u.s. presence at any ofthose other events. certainly no one from thewhite house and no other delegation will be sent tocuba to participate in any

of the other events. but i don't know if therewill be other diplomats or other officials who arebased at the embassy that may participate in some other events. alexis. to follow up on whatolivier was asking, can you check and see -- hasgeneral flynn had a chance to talk with susan rice? mr. earnest: i don't knowwhether or not general

flynn has had aconversation with dr. rice at this point. what i can tell you isthat there obviously is important work that'sbeing done by the officials at the nationalsecurity council that have been designated to engagewith the transition team appointed by thepresident-elect. and i know that thereare officials who are designated by thepresident-elect that have

been focused on a smoothand effective transition at the nationalsecurity council. that cooperation isunderway, but i don't know if that cooperation hasincluded a phone call between the nationalsecurity advisor and the president-elect's nationalsecurity advisor. the press: a questionabout the metrics. before the election, welistened to president obama tell americans thathis prediction was that

donald trump and a donaldtrump administration could reverse -- he describedit, everything he'd done is at risk. and he was quite stridentin his dire predictions. since the election andtoday again, yesterday, the president and yourrhetoric is that -- and he even told the new yorkerhe didn't expect more than 20, 25 percent of hisachievements to be erased. can those two predictionsof it's going to be much

harder than they imagineor they're going to take away everything -- canthose be consistent? or was heexaggerating then? or is he exaggeratingrosy eyeglasses now? mr. earnest: well, i think that's a good question, alexis. i think the point that thepresident was making on the campaign trail isthat progress is at risk because of the way --because of the outcome

of the election. you had one candidate whowas vowing to build on the progress that we've madeunder the affordable care act -- that's not thecandidate that won. the candidate that wonis the candidate that's vowing to repeal theaffordable care act and has even appointed orsomehow signaled his intention to nominate asecretary of health and human services who hasbeen a strident critic of

elections haveconsequences. and as a result, theprogress that we've made under the affordablecare act is at risk. there's just no denyingthat -- and at risk in a way that it would not havebeen had the election outcome been different. that said, there willbe some limits on the ambition that wasarticulated by the president-elect, justbased on the need to

confront the reality ofthe progress that we've made under theaffordable care act. and that's something thathe'll have to grapple with in office. but the risk facing themillions of americans that benefitted from theaffordable care act -- and i don't just mean the 20million who got health insurance from theaffordable care act, but i also mean the 150 millionamericans who get health

insurance through theiremployer who certainly are in a position where theycould see their employer premiums go up morequickly than they have in the last few years, andthey certainly are at risk of seeing some of theseconsumer protections that they benefit from nowbeing stripped away. but like i said, electionshave consequences. and i think that isreconcilable with the idea that every president, whenthey take office, does

have to deal with thereality that has a way of intruding. the press: i justwant to clarify. the president -- and wecan imagine what the good reasons were -- he did nottell voters, don't worry, if she loses, it's goingto be really hard for him to do this stuff -- right? which is whathe's saying now. it's going to bereally hard for this

administration to undo,he's arguing, what the obama administrationachieved. mr. earnest: the presidentwas making an argument based on risk. and he was underscoringthe risk that exists if president trump waselected because the president-elect is vowingto roll back the progress that we've madein so many areas. that risk has nowbeen realized.

that risk is present ina way that it would not otherwise have been. so the president'srhetoric has, unfortunately,come to pass. and now this is a riskthat our country is facing, unfortunately, arisk that the president would prefer that we nothave to pile on top of the other inherent risks thatany president will have to encounter.

but yet that iswhat we face. that risk is mitigatedby the fact that, yes, reality has away of intruding. but that risk is therenonetheless, and it's one that the nextadministration will have to deal with. mike. the press: you werespeaking earlier about the important role the u.s. is taking in the fightagainst isis in iraq,

including, obviously,the battle in mosul. there has been someconcern expressed about the battle plan, thestrategy there and its impact on civiliancasualties. you probably have readthere have been published estimates already of 600or more iraqi civilians already being killed inthat and some controversy over whether there shouldbe a change in the approach.

does the administrationsee any need to alter the approach to the battle ofmosul to reduce civilian casualties? mr. earnest: well, mike,i've read a little bit about this. in some ways -- i wouldencourage you to also direct your question tothe department of defense. they can provide youprobably more tangible operational assessment ofsome changes that

may be contemplated. but as a policy matter,why don't i lay out a couple of theconsiderations that factor into this. the first is that in thetwo and a half years that isil has been in controlof mosul, we know that any number of civilians havebeen killed, executed, tortured, harassed,threatened, maimed. so it's not as if notacting to retake mosul

somehow enhances thesecurity of the civilians who are already there. so the question really is,given that the status quo is unacceptable, how doyou execute an operation that avoids unnecessaryrisk to the civilian population? anytime you're talkingabout the second-largest city in iraq, this isa pretty significant challenge.

and it is why the unitedstates spent months working closely with iraqisecurity forces and with other members of ourcoalition to effectively plan for the operationto retake mosul. and what we have seenthus far is effective coordination among avariety of fighting forces, kurdish forces,iraqi security forces, both of which are being advised and assisted by u.s.

special forces onthe ground there. and we're pleased at thekind of progress that has been made thus far. the other element of theplanning was actually coordinated by the unitednations to ensure that there was sufficientcapacity to deal with the humanitarian situationand to deal with the possibility, even thelikelihood that there would be civilians fleeingthat city once parts of it

had been liberated. and fleeing the city meansending up in the desert without any food,water or shelter. and that has meant thatthe united nations and a variety of multilateralaid organizations and some countries have mobilizedresources to make sure that that aid is readilyavailable to people fleeing violence. and we've seen thatplanning be useful as

thousands of civiliansfleeing mosul have been able to benefit from theshelter, food, water and medicine that's providedby the united nations. but there's morework to be done. there are more risksthat will be faced. and certainly minimizingthe risk to the civilian population is an importantpriority of this ongoing operation. but anytime you aremobilizing a large-scale

military operation in anurban environment, there are going to be risks. and that risk is onlyenhanced when you have an organization like isilthat is so depraved that they're willing to useinnocent men, women and children as human shields. so the united states andothers who are involved in this operation willcertainly be working to minimize the risk thatis faced by civilians.

but it is entirely -- it'simpossible to reduce that risk to zero. and as you evaluate whatsort of risk you're willing to tolerate, it'simportant to remember that those civilians are facinga severe risk even if the status quo were in placeand even if there were not an operation underwayto retake that city. the press: onemore question. most of the tradelobbyists and people

around town have kindof given up on the tpp, particularly duringthis administration. when you've been askedabout it in the past, you've been kind ofcoy about whether the administration is still trying to do anything on it. the lame ducksession is starting. the president just haddinner with the senate democratic leaderlast night.

are you actually makingany press to get this passed, ratified, done inthe lame duck session? or have you justcompletely given up on it like everyone else? mr. earnest: well, theprospects are not good. but i don't know to whatextent it was discussed at dinner last night. cheryl. and this just came over-- it looks like vice president biden is goingto be traveling to canada

to meet withtrudeau and others. talking a lot about risk,is there any -- are there treaties or agreements orissues with canada that maybe are at risk now? why is bidengoing to canada? mr. earnest: well, i don'thave all the details on his itinerary or all ofthe items that are on his agenda. as you know, presidentobama had an opportunity

to meet with primeminister trudeau in peru just last week -- or aweek ago last sunday, and it was a valuableopportunity for the leader of the united states tosit down with the leader of canada, who is ourclosest partner on so many issues. so i'll refer you to thevice president's office for a more detailedaccount of what's on his agenda when hetravels there.

but i think, likepresident obama, he certainly admires theleadership of prime minister trudeau and ishopeful that the next administration will buildon the strong relationship that this administrationhas helped to cultivate with prime minister trudeau and the canadian people. lana. the press: the memorialservice and the funeral

sunday -- i just want toclarify one thing on that. will the same u.s. non-presidentialdelegation be attending the funeral? can we assume that benrhodes and ambassador -- or delaurentis will alsobe in attendance at the funeral? mr. earnest: they areonly participating in the memorial service that'splanned for tonight.

the briefing that wasprovided to me is that the actual funeral itself isactually a private event. but i can tell you thatthis is the only event that the deputy nationalsecurity advisor is planning to attend. the press: ohio stateyesterday -- does the president condemn thatas an act of terror? mr. earnest: well,obviously, i should start by saying that we owe adeep debt of gratitude to

the first responders whoreacted so heroically to the situation there. there are indicationsthat the suspect was neutralized within aminute or two of beginning this terribleact of violence. and that's thanksto the bravery and professionalism andskill of some of the law enforcement officers whoresponded so quickly to the scene.

so we obviously -- this isyet another opportunity for us to remember howprofessionally and how bravely men and women inpolice officers' uniforms all across the countrywork to protect us so well every day. we also are deeplyappreciative of the response that wasmobilized by emts and doctors and nursesin the columbus area. again, based on thebriefing that i received

this morning, it's likelythat there will be no loss of life in thisincident other than the perpetrator. and we obviously arethinking about and praying for a swift recovery forthose who were harmed in this incident. more generally, i can tellyou that law enforcement officers, with the supportof the fbi, are conducting a thorough investigationof this situation to learn

as much as they can aboutthe potential motive of this individual. it's important that thoseinvestigators uncover as much as they possiblycan to learn about this incident and to learnwhat we can do to try to prevent it from taking --an event like this from happening again. there are a couple ofthings, though, that we know.

the first is that thereis plenty of available evidence to indicate thatthis individual may have been motivated byextremism and may have been motivated by a desireto carry out an act of terrorism. and we know that our lawenforcement officers have a critical role to play inpreventing those acts of terrorism from succeeding. there are more than ahundred joint terrorism

task forces that areorganized in communities all across the countrythat fight crime, that fight extremism, thatfight terrorism on a daily basis. and it's important thatwe give them the support, financial and otherwise, to do their important work. it's also important for usto make sure that we're investing in programs tocounter violent extremism.

these interagency taskforces, some of which are mobilized, are organizedat the federal level and work closely with stateand local officials, law enforcement and communityleaders, to fight efforts to radicalize people inthis country is critically important. and this administrationhas poured more resources and devoted more time andattention to the success of these programsthan anyone else.

and that reflects ourdesire to adapt to the current threat picture. what's also true and whatwe also know based on some of the information aboutthis perpetrator that has been made public is thatour response to the situation matters. and i don't mean ourresponse as a government. i mean our response as acountry to this and if we respond to thissituation by casting

aspersions on millions ofpeople that adhere to a particular religion, or ifwe increase our suspicion of people whopractice a particular religion, we're morelikely to contribute to acts of violence thanwe are to prevent them. so our response matters. we'll let ourinvestigators determine exactly what led to thisevent, but even as we're waiting for additionalinformation, we should be

mindful of that response. the press: and then, thesouthern poverty law center released a reportthat 2,500 acts of harassment andintimidation were reported by teachers, invokingeither president-elect donald trump or hiscampaign rhetoric. is this -- how concerningis this to the president? mr. earnest: well, i thinkwhat we've seen is that the recently concludedpresidential campaign was

a hotly contested one and,unfortunately, a campaign that was characterizedby a lot of divisive rhetoric. and it was going to bethe responsibility of the winner of that election,whether it was secretary clinton or donald trump,to put at the top of his or her agenda uniting thecountry and healing the country in the aftermathof that election. and there are a lotof ways to measure or

evaluate the impact thatthis recently concluded election hadon our country. but the president iscertainly hopeful. and the presidentcertainly tried to do his part by setting aside hisown political views and focusing on a smooth andeffective transition to lay the groundwork for thenext president to take office and actuallysucceed in beginning to bring the country togetheronce again after a

divisive election. and the president isgenuinely hopeful that the next president will makethat a priority and that he will succeed in doing that. pam. the press: josh, thanks. the president-elect hashad positive things to say about his dealings withpresident obama in the oval office meetingand phone calls.

does president obama viewhis discussions with his successor as anopportunity to maybe use his powers of persuasionto get him to back off of a lot of the things hesaid on the campaign in terms of changingobama policies? mr. earnest: i thinkpresident obama views those conversations as anopportunity to offer some advice and to consult withthe president-elect as he prepares to assume theawesome responsibility of

governing the greatestcountry in the world. that's the nature of theirphone conversations. i'm going to protect theirability to have private consultations, so i won'tbe able to get into the topics that are covered ormore precisely discuss the nature of theirconversations. but president obama doesfeel an obligation and believes that it is oneof his most important remaining tasks to ensurea smooth and effective

transition from the obamaadministration to the trump administration. and if that transitioncan be facilitated by telephone conversationsbetween the president and the president-elect, thenpresident obama will participate in themaccordingly, and he will offer the best advice thathe possibly can to the incoming president. charlie. the press: justa quick question.

has the president had theopportunity to speak to the ohio state policeofficer that helped neutralize theattack yesterday? mr. earnest: i don't knowthat they've had a chance to talk at this point, butif a conversation like that occurs, we'lllet you know. and, fred, i'll giveyou the last one. yeah, just following upon some issues about what trump might change.

has the presidentexpressed any concern about what a trump supremecourt would look like and how that would affectsome of the legacy? mr. earnest: i'm not awarethat the president has spoken to this, eitherpublicly or privately. i think the president'sexpectation is that president trump will fillvacancies on the supreme court by appointing peoplewho are quite different than the kind of people

that president obama appointed. that may be one thingthat everybody across the country can agree on. it certainly doesn'tdiscount the president's deep disappointment at theway republicans in the senate treated chiefjudge merrick garland. chief judge garlandhas been waiting for consideration by thissenate for almost a year. and he is the mostexperienced supreme court

nominee in americanhistory when you consider his 19 years onthe federal bench. he was somebody who servedhis country in prosecuting the perpetrators of oneof the worst acts of terrorism on american soilwhen he helped lead an investigation and aprosecution of timothy mcveigh after theoklahoma city bombing. chief judge garlandis somebody that both democrats and republicanshave said is somebody with

a brilliant legal mind. and even republicans haveacknowledged that he's a consensus pick. and yet, republicans inthe senate refused to do their basic job and evengive him a hearing and even give him a vote. and that's deeplydisappointing. and, look, i don't know ifthat will -- if they will change course betweennow and january 20th.

i suspect they will not. and i don't know at thispoint who president trump would choose. he certainly would -- ithink he could in good faith -- well, look,he'll obviously have the opportunity to choosewhomever he would like. and we'll see how they'retreated in the senate. the press: twomore quick ones. would the president planon any executive actions

-- or does he just believethat those will just be instantly overturnedat this point? mr. earnest: can yourepeat your question? there was a key word inyour question that i missed and i want to makesure i don't screw it up. the press: does thepresident plan on taking any executive actionsbefore leaving office to solidify some policies? or does he just believethose would be instantly

overturned once the trumppresidency has started? mr. earnest: well, theprocess of acting on an executive order, fred,as you know, is -- an executive action or anexecutive order is one that requires alot of preparation. and so i'm not goingto rule out additional executive actions that theadministration may take between now and january20th -- after all, the president of the unitedstates is the president of

the united statesuntil january 20th. but what i can rule outare any sort of hastily added executive actionsthat weren't previously considered that would justbe tacked on at the end. but are there some actionsthat have been in the pipeline for quite sometime that could be announced betweennow and january 20th? that possibility certainlyexists, but i don't have anything to previewat this point.

the press: trump made, ofcourse, quite a bit of news last week when heindicated there wouldn't be prosecution ofhillary clinton. given that, does the obamaadministration take his word on that? and is there no chanceof a pardon of secretary clinton for any possibleoffenses or anything that the trump administrationmight go after her for? mr. earnest: well, fred, idid get asked about this

last week orthe week before. and the point is thatthere's a long tradition in the united states ofensuring that we separate criminal investigationsfrom politics. and there are a lot ofgood reasons for that. primarily the reason forit is to make sure that people aren't left somehowwith the impression that they'll be treateddifferently in our criminal justice systembased on their

political affiliation. our tradition in thiscountry is that everybody is treated equally underthe law, and that's a tradition that'sworth upholding. and in the case ofsecretary clinton, her use of a private emailsystem was thoroughly investigated by careerinvestigators at the department ofjustice and the fbi. and what the fbi directorconcluded is that in the

context of theinvestigation that no reasonable prosecutorwould move forward in seeking chargesagainst her. that was a recommendationthat he forwarded to officials at thedepartment of justice, and officials at thedepartment of justice agreed with hisrecommendation. so given that the fbidirector is somebody who was a registeredrepublican, who served in

the senior department ofjustice position in a republican administration,somebody who was confirmed with strong majorities inthe united states senate by democrats andrepublicans, i think it's an indication thatpolitics did not play a factor into theirconclusion. and that's a good thing. the press: so for whattrump might do later if he does try to launch aninvestigation, or his

justice department would,you don't think there would be a need for thepresident to pardon her before leaving? mr. earnest: well, again,i think i'd just refer you to what the fbi directorhad to say, which is that no reasonable prosecutorwould seeks charges against her. the press: -- federalhelp in tennessee, josh? mr. earnest: well, ican tell you, kevin, i

appreciate you asking. obviously, the folks intennessee are dealing with a quite serious wildfiresituation there right now. i can tell you that femahas already responded by providing a firemanagement assistance grant to the state oftennessee to help them mobilize the resourcesthat are necessary to fight the fire. the one piece of goodnews that we have is that

meteorologists arepredicting some rain in the area in thenext 24 to 48 hours. that obviously would be awelcome development and would hopefully hasten the extinguishing of that fire. thanks, everybody. we'll see you tomorrow.