LIVE: Pentagon Briefs the Media

Good afternoon, everyone. Apologies for being a bit delayed today, but appreciate you being flexible with our schedule. So just a few things at the top and then happy to take your questions. Tomorrow, Secretary Austin will host the 25th meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. The UDCG, first convened by Secretary Austin in April 2022, has been instrumental in coordinating international support to assist Ukraine in defending its sovereignty against Russia's unprovoked aggression. To date, the United States and our allies and partners have collectively committed more than $126 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. And through the work of its capability coalitions, the UDCG has also been critical in bolstering Ukraine's defense capability and building a credible deterrence force so that it can defend against future aggression as well. While I won't get ahead of any announcements at this milestone meeting of the contact group, which will be Secretary Austin's last, you can expect the Secretary to continue this important work at Ramstein tomorrow. He will engage defense ministers and senior military officials from around the world to discuss Ukraine's immediate battlefield needs and longer-term defense requirements. And again, as you know, the meetings will focus on key capabilities Ukraine needs, including air defense systems, artillery munitions, and armored vehicles, as well as efforts to enhance the defense industrial base. And following the meeting, Secretary Austin will participate in a press conference. Turning to the Middle East, today, U.S. Central Command forces conducted multiple precision strikes against two Iranian-backed Houthi underground advanced conventional weapons storage facilities within Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. The Houthis used these facilities to conduct attacks against U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the southern Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The strikes are part of CENTCOM's efforts to degrade these Iranian-backed Houthi attempts to threaten regional partners and military and commercial vessels in the region. Switching gears, on the transition, the department continues to execute a smooth and professional transition with daily interactions with the president-elect's agency review team, or ART. As of 8 a.m. today, ART members have participated in 106 meetings with DOD officials, and the transition task force has responded to 81 requests for information, or RFIs, from the ART. And last, as you probably just saw, the president, Governor Newsom, and others received a briefing on the devastating wildfires in Southern California, which the department continues to monitor. At the president's direction, the Department of Defense will provide additional firefighting personnel and capabilities. The federal government is working closely with the National Guard, which is deployed under the governor's state of emergency declaration. The California National Guard is adding two modular air firefighting system units, and two more are being readied by the Nevada National Guard. The Department of Defense has four additional MAFs that could be used if needed. Additionally, the department is sending 10 Navy helicopters with water delivery buckets to immediately assist with aerial suppression. And with that, I'd be happy to take your questions. Lita. Hi, Sabrina. Thank you. On Ukraine, the latest amount is not clearly the entirety of what is left. How concerned is the administration that you are leaving a pretty substantial amount of money not delivered to Ukraine in terms of weapons, several billion dollars? And do you think that those weapons will eventually get to Ukraine? And is there a danger of a lag? Sure. So on Ukraine, you know, as you mentioned, there will be a few billion dollars in authority left for the incoming administration to decide what they decide to do with that remaining authority. And, you know, what I would say is on the question of are we concerned, Ukraine has bipartisan support within Congress. And it is because of our efforts that Ukraine continues to be successful on the battlefield. And you know this, you know, back in February 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, many people, many pundits thought that Ukraine would fall, you know, immediately. And it is because of this administration's way forward and the commitment of the Ukrainians in their courage and fighting on the battlefield, that they continue to survive. But they do that with the support of the United States and other allied countries and coalitions through the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. And I think it's pretty clear that the Ukraine Defense Contact Group is, it's more than just a common understanding, it's a common cause. And so it's really up to the incoming administration to decide what they use, what they decide to do with the remaining authority that's left. But of course, we hope that, you know, in some way, the Ukraine Defense Contact Group continues on. But certainly support for Ukraine remains strong within Congress. And I'm sorry, you had a second question on Ukraine. Just on the assistance to California, for additional, you said, I'm sorry, 10 Navy helicopters, that's active duty, correct? It would be through the California National Guard working, well, the department is feeding into the California National Guard's request. So right now it is all through state authorities. So these 10 Navy helicopters are what then? We are standing by to send 10 Navy helicopters with water delivery buckets. It's, I don't have the authorities on which they will be provided under. So I can, I am happy to get back to you on that. I'm not asking for authority. I'm asking, is that active duty Navy that's going to be flying? Yeah, that would be my understanding. That's my understanding. Yeah. You know how many personnel that involves or anything? Do you have any other details? And is that the only active duty military involved? You know what, actually, I'm sorry, can I take the question on if that's active duty? I just don't want to misspeak and I want to make sure that that, that I get you the right information. The anti-terrority on active duty that's involved in this would be helpful. Yep. Let me get back to you on the active duty component. But these are federal assets. These would be federal assets. Correct. Yes. And then Jen, yeah. Okay. Can I follow up? So it seems like a slightly anemic amount of federal assets being provided to the largest fire in California history with the commander in chief out there. Why not flood the zone, if you will, with more assets? Well, Jen, it's a matter of also, can those assets get in the air? And right now, I mean, Cal Fires is, has some of the best capabilities and equipment to fight fires in California. We can surge assets and the president has directed this department to bolster whatever California needs. But we have to work with California. And right now we can't even get assets up in the air because the fires are so bad and because the winds are so bad. So until we can do that, I mean, you're seeing the footage on the ground. I know you're covering it as well. Until we can get more assets in the air, there's only so much we can provide. So we're going to be standing by to support in every single way that we can. And of course, you saw the president has directed the Department of Defense to feed into what California needs, but there are safety protocols that have to be followed. And until we can get additional air support in the air, we're standing by ready to support California with what it needs. To follow up, does the Pentagon have military plans to invade Greenland if ordered to do so? Yeah, I thought I'd get a question on this. Appreciate it. Look, I saw the comments. I'm certainly not going to get into hypotheticals. I think that's for the incoming administration to speak to. We're concerned with the real national security concerns that confront this building every single day, which is why you're seeing the secretary convene the UDCG tomorrow in Ramstein for the 25th time. We're going to continue to keep our eye on the ball and focus when it comes to Ukraine, when it comes to what we're doing in the Middle East to support Israel, and also continuing to push for a ceasefire in Gaza. And then while we only have a limited amount of days left in this administration, we're certainly keeping an eye on our pacing challenge in the Middle East. Are there plans to take Greenland by force if ordered to do so? Yeah, appreciate the question, and I'm not aware of any plans to do that. Yesterday, DOJ filed a motion to stop the plea deals for four of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Obviously, you can't talk about it because it's ongoing litigation, but what is the administration's policy on Guantanamo Bay? Do you want to close Guantanamo Bay, or what is your policy on Guantanamo? I think the president has been pretty clear that, and what you've seen over the past few months, is more detainees leaving Guantanamo Bay. But again, when it comes to this specific appeal, there's a process that we are going through with the appeals process, and because of that, these individuals are going to stay there for the foreseeable future. But look, I think every administration has made a concerted effort to try and get detainees out of Guantanamo Bay and slowly close that facility. These things take time. And as early as this week, you saw us make an announcement about other detainees being transferred to other countries. So when it comes to the appeal, I'm just going to have to leave it at that. How can you say you—how is it in line with the policy to close Guantanamo if you're filing a motion to not let four of them out? Well, right now they don't have somewhere to go, so we have to go through the process of—I mean, they're still under—I mean, this is an appeal that, as you remember over the summer, that when the secretary weighed in on this process, that until it's resolved in the courts, you know, we have to let that play out. So at this time, we have to go through the judicial proceedings. And, you know, I've just—I don't have anything more to add right now. Sure. On Yemen, what is the administration's policy with the strikes? It was initially to degrade the capability to strike shipping lanes. Is that still the policy? If you can just define what the policy is when it comes to Houthis. So many specific policy questions today. Sure. So when it comes to the Houthis, I mean, nothing's changed about Operation Prosperity Guardian. That still remains intact and is there to continue to degrade Houthi capabilities, but also to protect commercial shipping and our ships and other allied ships and coalition ships that go through the Red Sea and the BAM. When it comes to our policy on the Houthis, I mean, we never said we were going to take every capability off the map. What we did say is we're going to continue to work to degrade capabilities and to ensure, you know, upholding the international rules-based order and the free flow of commerce through that region. So, you know, we continue to be successful in our strikes. Again, we're not going to be able to take off the map every single capability, but every single time that we conduct a dynamic strike or do the strikes that you saw CENTCOM announce earlier this morning, that further degrades their capabilities and takes things off the map that they can use against commercial ships or our own Navy ships. Did that help? Sorry. Okay. Janie. Thank you, Sabrina. Two questions on North Korea and Ukraine. First question. Three days ago, North Korea launched a new hypersonic medium-range ballistic missile into the east coast. And Kim Jong-un stated that it could effectively penetrate any defense barrier and inflict serious military blow on the enemy and specify Guam, a U.S. territory, as the target in case of a contingency. What is the Pentagon's reaction? So we're aware of North Korea's launch of a ballistic missile. And as always, we conduct closely with our allies in the region. We condemn these actions and, you know, would continue to urge the DPRK from further unlawful and destabilizing acts. We've seen this type of behavior before. And while we don't assess that it presents a threat to U.S. forces, we're going to continue to monitor the situation. Is it a violation of U.N. Security Council also? Yeah. I mean, Janie, I think you've heard us say that previously many times before. Again, it's something that we've seen the DPRK conduct in the past. We take this seriously, and we're going to continue to consult with our allies in the region. Ukrainian President Zelensky said the U.S. could negotiate an end to the war within Russia only if security guarantees were made for Ukraine. How would you respond to this? You know, Janie, I'm going to let President Zelensky's words speak for themselves. He is ultimately the one that is going to have to decide, you know, how this war comes to a conclusion. That's not for us to dictate, and that's not for us to dictate those terms. What we are doing as the United States and as the Department of Defense is what the Secretary has done since April 2022, which is convene the UDCG and bring together partners and different coalitions to help Ukraine with what it needs both in the short term and the long term in its battlefield requirements. So that's what you're going to see convened tomorrow. I'll leave it at that. Mike. It's the helicopters. Are they coming from San Diego or the other, you know, Navy, the big Navy bases, or other big Navy bases in California? I don't have more information on where they're coming from just yet. Konstantin. Thanks. So over the past 30 days or so, CENTCOM has announced a series of strikes against ISIS. You know, some of them have been, seem to be larger than kind of the usual battle rhythm. Is that an indication that the organization is, that ISIS is either reconstituting itself, or is posing a greater threat than usual to the U.S.? No, I think from when you saw the fall of Assad, you saw, you know, Russian assets further consolidate, which allowed U.S. Central Command to take actions in the Badia Desert and elsewhere, where we hadn't previously, you know, done significant amount of strikes. I wouldn't read into the fact that ISIS is reconstituting in any way. That's exactly why we are in Syria and Iraq to prevent that from happening, to prevent them from becoming, you know, the strength that we saw a decade ago. And that's why the mission there is so important. But, you know, these strikes, when they are conducted, it is at the time and place of the commander's choosing, but also because it is that opportune moment, and that we will inflict the most damage because of that timing. So I wouldn't read so much into the cadence, as much as it's more about the right time, right place for these strikes to be done. Fair enough. So then, given all that sort of in the context of New Orleans and that particular attacker's profession of ISIS ideology, you know, is there an assessment from the Pentagon that while perhaps militarily, the organization is not an increased threat, that ideologically, they're still able to influence U.S. service members or U.S. service members, U.S. citizens in the homeland? You know, I certainly think there is, we're certainly aware that groups like ISIS and other terrorist groups use social media or social platforms to reach, you know, anyone. And that's something that is incredibly concerning, but that's not something that just this department deals with. That's an interagency effort, including with Homeland Security. You know, in terms of, you know, the New Orleans suspect that you referenced, that is under investigation. But I think something that the investigation is going to look at is just how and why this individual was able to be influenced and able to be targeted and swayed by a group like ISIS, you know, and many years out of the service. So it's, of course, something that we're concerned about. And that's why our mission in Syria and Iraq is so important, to continue to degrade ISIS as we've seen them proliferate in other parts of the world. We want to make sure that we are addressing that head-on, and that's why we are where we are in both of those places. Two days ago, the Korean prison mentioned that the number of the casualty North Korean soldiers about 3,800. Do you have any update on the number of casualty North Korean soldiers and any benefit situation in North Korea? Excuse me, sorry. The question was on North Korean soldiers and casualties. Nothing has changed from our assessment, which I think we gave a few weeks ago, or maybe last week. I'm kind of losing track of time. Approximately 1,000 DPRK casualties. That's a mix of killed in action and wounded in action. Again, I don't have more than what we previously provided. Does the U.S. currently provide YPG with new ammunition and weapons in Syria? There are some deliveries landed in Hasakah and Rojava. If so, what is the current capacity of the supply? I don't have anything on those reports. Again, I think you know that our partnership is with the SDF. We work with them when it comes to continuing to further degrade ISIS's capabilities in the region, whether that be partner raids or the unilateral strikes that you've seen Central Command conduct over the past decade and most recently in the past few weeks. How does this help the transition with Turks and the administration in Damascus currently supplying them with weapons? Again, the work that we do in Syria is a partnership with the SDF. I think it's important to remember that the whole reason why we are in Syria is to continue that enduring mission to defeat ISIS. That is a partnership with the SDF, whether it be in partnered raids or in strikes. Our entire mission in Syria is to ensure the continuing defeat of ISIS. Tony. A couple of PDA follow-ups. Exclusive of what's going to be released tomorrow, this massive, substantial PDA, how much has been obligated to date or how much has been drawn on to date of the 72 PDAs so far, roughly? I can tell you how much we have left in authority. I don't have the totals of how much like over time. I mean, I said in my topper at the very beginning that it's approximately $126 billion in security assistance to Ukraine that the United States and our partners have collectively committed. In terms of authority, there will be a few billion dollars left in authority left. My question is, when this comes out tomorrow, for size and scope, it's going to be useful for the public to know how much. It's like over X billions, but can you get that round up from 2021 through the 72? Tony, I appreciate it. I'm not going to get ahead of any announcements. You can go back and look through all the different PDAs and totals that we've released over time. I'm not going to do the math from here right now. But what I can tell you is the authority that you can look and also see what Congress has allocated the department. I can tell you that there's going to be a few billion left in authority for the next administration to decide what to do when it comes to Ukraine. May I push back a little bit here? Sure. A, the Pentagon's got an obligation to do the math rather than having the public try to go through 72 of these things. That's one point. Two, I think a lot of people are going to wonder, why didn't the Pentagon, why were you unable to obligate, use all of the authority, the 4.8 billion, I think it was? Why not? Why are you leaving any left given the urgency of the situation? Well, you might remember earlier last year, we had a gap in funding that we were not able to restock our own shelves and our own supplies. So when we weren't able to do that and we were operating under a time when we were not able to resupply our own stocks, that prevented us from getting PDAs out the door. And you saw us pause for several weeks, in fact, on being able to supply Ukraine with what it needs on the battlefield. With every single PDA, we have to weigh it against our own readiness. And if the Secretary and the Chairman do not feel that we can provide a package at a certain amount of time, we will not be able to provide that package. That delay in funding severely limited the department on what we were able to provide Ukraine during that time. The thing was passed in April, we're in January. So a prudent person who doesn't follow this closely would say, that was a long time ago. And I would tell that prudent person that look, it takes the Defense Industrial Base, it still takes a while to produce these capabilities. I the point of providing over 70, you know, presidential drawdown authority packages to Ukraine, I think speaks volumes to this department's and this administration's commitment to Ukraine. Louie? A follow up. Sure. Can I get a clarification on the maps, the numbers, please? Can you tell me how many are being provided, how many are being ready? So sorry, Louie, let me just go back to my... So the California National Guard is adding two maps, and two more are being readied by the Nevada National Guard. And the department has four additional maps that could be used if needed. So that's a total of... Okay, I'm reading the White House and the White House, North Com is preparing for more, but I guess... I would say that the department, yeah. And also when you talked, you mentioned you have an update on the transition context. In the time remaining in his term, is Secretary Austin intending to speak with Secretary-designate, or excuse me, nominee Pete Hexer? Or has that happened? Or again, does he intend to? I don't have any calls or meetings to announce at this time. So does that mean there are plans to, should he be confirmed? I mean, what exactly is your statement? Right now, I don't have anything to announce. If I have something to announce about a meeting or a call, I'll certainly keep you updated. Okay, I'm gonna go to the phones and then come back in the room. Chris Gordon, Air and Space. Thanks, Sabrina. I have two questions, one on Ukraine, and one on Iraq. Regarding Ukraine, can the Pentagon provide the number of Ukrainian F-16 pilots that have been trained in the U.S., even if you have to take that question? And can you provide us with a general idea of the U.S. support for the F-16 pilot training program under this administration's tenure? And then my second question, on the actions against ISIS, can the Pentagon explain a little bit more about what exactly happened in the Iraqi mountains? Were the fighters that conducted airstrikes all U.S. aircraft? Did the F-15s and F-16s conduct pre-planned airstrikes as part of this operation? Just trying to understand that a little bit more. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. On your question on the ISIS strikes, I think you're referring to that from a few weeks ago. I think Central Command put out all that we're going to on those strikes. But for more information, I'd refer you to them to speak to that operation. On the F-16 program, I think you're pretty well versed on it. You know, we are a co-lead on the Air Capability Coalition. We have trained a handful of Ukrainian pilots. That training took place here in the United States. But of course, other countries did host Ukrainian pilots and continue to train them. I'm not going to get into specific numbers right now. But I think you're certainly well versed in all the training that goes into the F-16. And the Air Capability Coalition is still working to train more additional pilots when ready. Heather, USNI. I hope you're aware from January 6th that they attacked the Harry S. Truman carrier strike group, preventing them from attacking sites in Yemen. Can you confirm whether or not the strike group did receive any attacks or targets by the Houthis and whether or not that, in fact, prevents anything? And then in terms of Central Command's policies on announcing when ships have an attack, is there a specific policy for when they will alert the United States public about any attacks on our ship? Heather, apologies, you came in a little muffled. So I think I got a little bit of your question. So I think you asked about an attack on the Harry S. Truman, or maybe that if the Harry S. Truman the ship was not hit. Our destroyers and the carrier strike group, whenever there is something launched from the Houthi controlled areas in Yemen, they will shoot that down in defense of our ships or other commercial vessels transiting the Red Sea or the BAM. But I'm not aware of any attacks on US personnel or ships recently. In terms of policies on attacks, I think CENTCOM tries to put that out as frequently as possible. But I'd refer you to CENTCOM to speak more to that. Jeff Shull, Task and Purpose. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify the four MAFs and the 10 helicopters. Is it accurate to say they are going to California, or they could go? And I was hoping you could clarify your statement about how nothing can get in the air. Aren't there areas outside of Los Angeles where the US military could put assets in the air to help with the fire? Thank you. Jeff, for more on where assets can fly, I think California would be better to speak to that. My understanding is the wind conditions are so bad that even to put out the fires right now, you cannot get aircraft or helicopters in the air where those fires are concentrated. Of course, there are other areas in California where you can fly. Again, I'm not a fire expert. I would refer you to the state of California to speak more to that. In terms of the helicopters, the department is sending 10 Navy helicopters with water delivery buckets to assist with aerial suppression. The department has four additional MAFs that could be used if needed. With that, coming back in the room. Yeah. Thank you, Sabrina. Back to Syria. Local media shows that there is increasing US forces activity in northern Syria and parts of north of Iraq, claiming that these forces are moving into Syria. And there are some reports that specific units went into Ain al-Arab or Kobani, which has nothing to do with ISIS. There is no ISIS threat that we know of at that specific area. Can you give us any information on this or can you approve these reports? Yeah, I think what you're referring to is some reporting out there that the United States is somehow setting up a permanent structure, basing facility in Kobani, and that is just not accurate. The SDF has been operating in that region, but I don't have anything to read out on US forces setting anything up permanently in the northern part of Syria. As you know, our footprint within Syria and the de-ISIS mission is in that eastern part of the country. So pre-inauguration, there is no any change in the posture of the US forces? Nothing has changed in terms of our posture or our mission when it comes to Syria. Yeah. Thank you, Sabrina. So as previously reported, there are now around 2,000 US troops in Syria. Do they have a new role, like separate defeating ISIS? Do they have another role? Similar to the question that I just got, there is no change to the mission. The mission continues to be the focus on ensuring the defeat of ISIS. That's why we have our troops there on the ground. That is their sole mission. And one more. Turkish drones today bombed a mass gathering of civilians in Adham in Kobani. They were protesting against the threats posed by the Turkish-backed forces. Is this department engaging with Turkish counterparts on this? I don't have anything for you on that. I haven't seen those reports. Yeah. Last question. I'm so sorry. Charlie just got very upset that I was going to say last question, but he's sitting in the back. So please. Thank you. Back to combating the wildfires. There's a significant number of Americans, most of them younger Americans, who think that DOD's sole mission in life is to drop bombs, fire missiles, and shoot at the enemy in faraway lands overseas. But in reality, the humanitarian aid disaster relief mission is a significant part of DOD's mission. Could you please speak to that, the level of commitment DOD has to help abroad or domestically when called upon? And why is it important for Americans to understand that level of commitment? You certainly just outlined it. Do you want to come up here? Look, I think there is, of course, the perception about the department, when you see the imagery of some of the systems and capabilities that we have in our stocks, that immediately invokes some type of idea. But you're correct. The department does provide humanitarian support, not just for folks here at home, but all around the world. Middle of last year, the department was involved in a humanitarian mission to get aid into Gaza, to get life-saving food and medical supplies into Gaza. We've been involved in missions when it comes to Haiti and in areas of the world where there have been horrific natural disasters such as flooding or hurricanes or earthquakes. And so, while, of course, the mission of the department will always be to defend our national security interests, of course, there's a humanitarian aspect to that. And I think I can continue to go on from here, but I would encourage you to speak to each of the services who have their own involvement and own humanitarian work that they do in their missions all around the world. And I think, certainly, of course, as we think about what our folks are doing on the ground, whether it be how we helped assist residents in North Carolina to residents in Southern California, I think we do a lot of great work that, of course, doesn't always get covered all the time, but our service members do it very proudly. With that, I will go to Charlie. Last question. Completely left field. Venezuelan authorities say that they've arrested a number of Americans, and among those Americans is a high-ranking military official. Confirmed? Denied? Acknowledged? I've seen those reports. I can't confirm that. I'd refer you to the State Department for more on that. I just can't confirm that. Military aspect of it? I cannot confirm that right now. Additionally, in the past, I think, 24 hours, I think CENTCOM put out a statement that a coalition partner was killed in the anti-ISIS mission. Do we know which coalition partner that might be? I don't have that in front of me. I would refer you to CENTCOM for more details on that. CENTCOM hasn't been very forthwith. I'd still refer you to CENTCOM. I'm sorry. I just don't have those details in front of me. Central Command should be able to provide more of that for you. Okay. Anything else? Anything about the American? It was a coalition partner forces, so yes, I can rule out that it was not an American that was killed. All right. Thanks, everyone.