understand 8500 troops fall under nato. the other hundred troops didn't unilaterally, do they fall under the european troops? it is a bilateral arrangement we have and we send u.s. troops to that country to bolster their self-defense. they will fall >> state department nick price says the u.s. is looking for a

diplomatic solution but remains prepared for potential military conflict. he briefed reporters and took questions for a full hour. sec. price: afternoon. happy monday. as a gift to all of you, i don't have anything at the top. happy to start with your questions. time will tell. >> can i ask you about a general question on the ukraine? what do you think that you accomplished at this security council meeting? sec. price: >> you have heard

you have heard from our ambassador to the u.n. >> you don't need to go through everything that she said. what does the administration think that it accomplished? sec. price: can i give a slight preamble? >> you just don't need to repeat everything that was said an hour ago. sec. price: i will come to your question. not everybody is the same reporter extraordinaire. the un security council as we know, under the u.n. charter, has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. it takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to international peace and security. it takes the lead in examining

instances of aggression. that's what we are seeing here. you've heard that from us over the past couple of months. you heard that from our allies and partners. you heard that from members of the security council today. the point today was to continue to shine a spotlight on what we are seeing. we went to continue to demonstrate to the national federation of the world is united. a core tenant of the rule of faith international order.

we heard from many of the speakers today that this situation and the crisis on the border that russia has needlessly precipitated should be resolved diplomatically. diplomacy and dialogue remains our preferred course. there was a resounding call on the security council this morning that russia should avail itself of that portion. we heard from the russian federation as we heard from moscow that they have no plans to invade the ukraine. as we have consistently said, we will be looking for these. we and the members of the security council. we will hold them to those

words. you heard that from us in the council. you heard that from any number of allies and partners around the world. this was the first time despite dozens of private engagements, about 180 engagements in recent weeks, this was the first time that the security council took up this session. we thought it was important. with that level of exposition. >> it sounds like the same thing going back and forth between both sides. when you say that the security council takes the lead in determining a threat, does the security council actually do anything? sec. price: this was not about a resolution, it was not about a vote.

this was about an exposition of the facts. >> exposition after exposition. you yourself get up here every day and -- whenever you get up here, you talk about the g7 and the eu and nato and you talk about -- any number of international forums where this stuff has actually come out and been agreed on. sec. price: we are not going to apologize for engaging in robust diplomacy. and for continuing to be transparent. if the criticism is that we are engaging too robustly in diplomacy, too transparent, and being too consistent, that is criticism we will accept. >> i'm not criticizing at all. i'm just curious.

you say the world is united in opposing russian aggression, and you say that because of what happened at the security council today, that is quite wrong because the world isn't united. there are two members of the council that are veto-weilding members, who didn't want this meeting in the first place. what do you think -- how do you think you have advanced the cause, your cause, the cause of the united states, of europe, of nato, in countering russian aggression with this meeting? sec. price: you raised two countries. >> they are pretty big countries. sec. price: the country that is behind this aggression, the country that is behind this buildup, a country that is

consistently engaged in disinformation and propaganda in an effort to obvious gate -- few obfuscate the facts. i assume that you are also referring to the p.r.c. the p.r.c. frequently does side and vote with russia on the security council. but did not come as a surprise. their objection today was more an objection to the format than a dismissal of the subject. we know that this is a matter of concern for the p.r.c. i make a couple other points. we often hear from the p.r.c. v ery forceful support for territorial integrity and the

concept of sovereignty. that is the refrain of the p.r.c. in new york and in beijing and around the world. >> when they talk about that, they are talking about tibet, hong kong, all things that you disagree with. sec. price: these principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, these are principles that are universal. they have universal applicability. >> then you do believe that the p.r.c. has territorial sovereignty over hong kong and tibet? sec. price: if any country believes in the concept of sovereignty -- >> it should be china? sec. price: this is an episode that has the potential to undermine that core tenant of the rules-based international

order. there are a lot of issues where we do not see i tie with our p.r.c. counterparts -- do not see eye to eye with our p.r.c. counterparts. where we do see eye to eye is in diplomatic support for a resolution, it is in no one's interest, not in nato's interest, not in our european allies interest, not in the p.r.c.'s interest to see a destabilizing conflict emerge on the european continent. it would destabilize the p.r.c.'s interest all over the world as well. we know how the p.r.c. tends to operate. we also know that russian aggression, a renewed russian

invasion of the ukraine would be a matter of great importance and presumably a matter of great concern for the p.r.c. >> after today, do you have a concrete plan to keep the security council's attention on this issue -- further meetings on situations? sec. price: i will defer to my colleagues in new york but i think what you heard from the ambassador today is that she has been intensely focused on this. intensely focused on this. with our allies and partners in new york but also with the russian delegation in new york. whether it is with the un security council contacts or more broadly in new york, the answer to your question broadly speaking is yes. we will continue to focus on

this across all appropriate forums. >> last week, deputy secretary ben sherman made a comment about a potential russian invasion and she was speaking in reference to the olympics. she said that given the timing and the olympics starting soon, she wouldn't be surprised if putin chose to invade. surely you will say i am not in vladimir putin's brain and told speak for him but certainly the u.s. president is on this. is it the thinking that putin will wait until after the olympics? sec. price: there is not much that i'm in position to say here beyond a couple of broad points. you heard this from secretary austin and chairman millie. we do not believe that vladimir putin has made a firm decision. the other point is that only

one person can make that decision. if putin has not made a decision, that decision has not yet been made. it is our goal in all of this to attempt to influence moscow's decision-making and moscow's calculus. as we have made clear that our preferred course is dialogue and diplomacy, we continue to make preparations by the other path. deterrence it is up to us and our partners -- and deterrence. it is up to us and our partners --we have been very clear about that, to matt's question, perhaps too clear in the words of some. that is what we have been engaged in all along.

as we continue to move along the path of dialogue and diplomacy we continue to prepare. >> the final thing is about whether you have an update on the number of americans in the ukraine. sec. price: when we have discussed this in the context of the ukraine and other countries, you know by now that we typically do not provide numbers of u.s. citizens living in or traveling to another country. we don't do that for the number -- for the reasons familiar to you by now. united states travelers are not required to register. they do not necessarily deregister when they leave the country. when it comes to a registration of individuals in the step system, we are not in a position to verify individuals who sign

up. we know from previous experiences that international organizations, third country nationals, many who are not u.s. citizens sign up for various reasons. having said all of that, our embassies do compile estimates of u.s. citizens in their countries for time to time for contingency planning purposes. our team has been engaged in robust contingency planning for officials here at the department and across the inner agency for some time. these estimates are based on the best available information, specific to that country. polling on all available inputs. we are not in a position to call any official figure authoritative or comprehensive. for the ukraine, in october, the

estimate was that there were 6600 u.s. citizens residing in the ukraine. that is in addition to american tourists and visitors who may have been there at the time. we reached that estimate based on all of the input available to us, and that is available to us from our partners -- and the chamber of commerce. exchange programs and international schools. and the number of people applying for u.s. citizen services. those inputs are instructive. they are not necessarily dispositive when it comes to a firm number. that is the estimate that we were able to arrive at last

summer. before the military buildup began, at any given point in time, there could be 16,000 u.s. citizen tourists and visitors in the ukraine. this was in october. ever since, we have been urging u.s. citizens not to travel to the ukraine. it was in the first instance a result of the covid-19 pandemic and epidemiological conditions in the ukraine, and of course more recently due to the increased threat from russia. there could be 16,000 tourists and visitors.

our best assessment is that it is much lower now. we do not believe this figure to be an accurate reflection of where we are now. many of those american tourists and visitors would presumably have departed the country and never intended to stay more than a couple of days. we have concerted messaging including in recent weeks. americans should strongly consider departing the country, they should avail themselves of the commercial options that are available to my due to covid and more recently and more acutely to the risk of a russian invasion. >> are you doing any undertaking of any efforts to reach out to the people like the 6600? sec. price: the answer is yes.

this happens all around the world but especially in places where the situation has the potential to destabilize quite rapidly. regularly messaging american citizens, sending out notices, urging them as we have done in recent days and hours to strongly consider availing themselves of the available commercial options and departing the country now. we have been issuing that message for some time. we will continue to urge american citizens -- warnings that american citizens should not travel to the ukraine. they should not educate american citizens who remain in the ukraine. they continue to remain very clear.

to convey that message to american citizens. whether it is social media, or on our website, or social engagement with reporters like all of you. availing ourselves of every appropriate channel. the guidance that americans should strongly consider leaving the ukraine at this time. >> do you say that the number 16,000 potentially at any one time would have decreased significantly over the last four months. do you also think that the 6600 would have increased significantly? >> the difference between those numbers is it is the difference in tourists.

>> is it some kind of perception on the 6600 who are living there permanently or residing there have also left since october? sec. price: the short answer is that we don't have a way of knowing. if you take your question on the basis of human nature, rather than any sort of confirmed knowledge, the short answer is that a greater percentage of the visitors and tourists that were there in october are no longer there. that 16,000 number is lower. and it comes to the 6600 figure, we don't have perfect insight into it but many individuals are likely to be dual citizens, those who we consider to be home, we consider them to be more difficult than for someone who was there for a business opportunity or tourism purposes.

>> tomorrow -- would talk to prime minister lavrov. would you share your expectations for this? in previous engagements you have said you are not expecting a breakthrough. this time you have shared your written response. everyone knows the other side is concerned with threats and stakes. what do you expect tomorrow? sec. price: i would characterize it as the next step in the path to diplomacy and dialogue. the opportunity for the foreign minister to speak -- as you later heard from us, we told the russian federation that our

written response would be forthcoming imminently. at a date to be determined, the foreign minister and secretary of state would have an opportunity to engage. that date has arrived. you have heard from the kremlin what to us is the key fact, and the key reaction. it is and has been on the desk of vladimir putin. there is only one individual who can determine what moscow does or does not do. his response is the response that matters most to us. we will have to see what the foreign minister has to say in terms of conveying the official position or any initial reaction from the kremlin or written

response, that is precisely why the secretary is engaging in this conversation. to continue discussions around issues where there may be the potential for reciprocal progress. reciprocal in terms of improving and addressing the security concerns of the united states. those whom we share with our european allies and partners. determining if there are ways with the vent diagram of issues that all of us believe may be viable. to determine if there are ways to address the moscow standing. >> president macron talked again to president putin for the second time in four days. is it more effective to just talk to president putin and to keep the other parts of the

government -- since you say he is the owner one who can decide? sec. price: we have not shut the door on engagement with president putin. -- fortunate to have a secretary of state deeply engaged on this. the next conversation will be at that level. >> secretary -- keeps saying that you are exaggerating. the ukrainian ambassador today said basically the same thing. if the ukrainians are saying your exaggerating, and you keep saying it is really eminent -- imminent, can you clarify? sec. price: you heard from the

ukrainian ambassador yesterday on the level of coordination between our countries. our point in all of this speaks to what we have heard from some of our ukrainian partners. everything you have heard from us. whether that is in terms of fulfilling the ukrainian government or requests for significant amount of defensive security assistance which we have done to the tune of 660 million dollars, more than any administration has previously done. to the ukrainians, whether it is what we have done in the context

of nato, the contingency planning, the pledge to reinforce or reinsure nato's eastern flank. none of this is an effort to so panic -- to sow panic. all of this is an effort to deter. vladimir putin, should he determined to go forward, regardless to ensure that defenses are reinforced. >> [inaudible] sec. price: we announced a couple weeks ago that the president authorized a drawdown of $200 million. that assistance has been delivered to the ukraine.

there are more deliveries associated with that drawdown that will continue. >> two questions. possible u.n. ambassador nomination to the ukraine. can you confirm that ambassador bridget brain is top choice? sec. price: i am not in a position to confirm that. the nominations emanate from the white house. the secretary was asked about that the other day. he did note that we expect a nomination to be forthcoming. >> second on sanctions, last friday during the press conference, president zelensky asked publicly why the u.s. and partners are talking about possible sanctions in case russia invades. why after, why not now, he asks. would you be able to elaborate? sec. price: sure.

our overriding goal in this is to resolve this crisis in moscow through dialogue and diplomacy. our goal is to see to it that we need not enact sanctions because that means that the russians will not have moved forward with aggression. our goal is deterrence. a key point in all of this is that our sanctions -- any sanction package would lose the deterrence effect if it were put in place in advance. that is one point. we have heard the question as to why we are not more specific about the sanctions that we are preparing and have prepared with

our allies and partners. it is not in our interest to allow the russian federation to take steps that would mitigate the impact of these sanctions. part of the deterrent effect of the sanctions is the fact that we have been very clear. they will be unprecedented in terms of their scope, in terms of their scale -- that they go after sectors that have strategic importance to the russian federation. these are measures that were intentionally not pursued. these are not elements, these are not tools that we take lightly. these would not be anything that

we would seek to discount or to minimize. that speaks to the strength of the sanctions that would have evolved. third point. as we put these measures in place, we are moving forward across a range of actions, in the vein of defensive deterrent s. we have spoken of the assistance we are providing to the ukraine. the operation for third countries to provide u.s. equipment to the ukraine. we have spoken to the economic assistance and support that we are looking at with the support of congress. we have spoken of what we are doing with nato to reinforce and

to reinsure nato's eastern flank. those are some of the areas where -- some of the areas where we are doing something well in advance of russian invasion or something else. we are moving full speed ahead to make sure that as we are on this course of diplomacy and dialogue, we are ready with deterrence. >> you mentioned in congress there is a bipartisan effort to pass a new russian sanction bill. the only contested issue seems like nord stream 2. does the administration support this effort? do you have any new position? sec. price: i will defer to congress as this specific legislation moves through congress.

you heard that we have been in regular touch with the hill on this legislation. we continue to be in close contact with everything related to russia and the ukraine. i will defer to our counterparts on the hill. beyond what we said last week, nord stream 2 will not move forward one way or another. it needs to be our position. >> ambassador thomas greenfield said the united states believes that russia moved 5000 troops into belarus. the united states has information and evidence that they believe russia is moving 30,000 troops to the ukrainian border within days. u.s. officials -- that this comes from recently declassified u.s. intelligence.

can you give more information about how the united states knows this without getting into sources and methods? as you know the u.s. does not have a flawless record when it comes to giving intelligence at the security council. can you give us a little bit more background information? >> the short answer is that i'm not in position to offer further detail on the information that we have released, because some of it does come from information that we have been able to appropriately declassify with adequate protection for sources and methods. the amount of additional detail that we can offer is limited. what i will say is that we have since the earliest days of this crisis that moscow has provoked been extraordinarily transparent. and i think your question speaks

to the fact that we are not following the normal formula in how we talk about these things. we thought that it was important to be clear and consistent with the american people and the international community, including our allies and partners in europe but also the russian federation. to leave no mistake that we have taken note of what we initially called their unusual military movements. -- the concerns that we had at the time. since then we have been in a position to release additional detail, to expose what the

russians had and are doing. you have also seen our allies and partners doing that as well. our british counterparts released some information -- >> that was u.s. derived information that the british released. >> we have an incredibly close intelligence sharing relationship with the united kingdom. it is true that we share an extraordinary amount of information with them but the british government released information pointing to what was characterized as preparations to install kremlin loyalists in the event of russian aggression. that speaks to the fact that it is not just the united states government sharing these concerns stop we have heard from

other governments that have declassified information, but with allies and partners from around the world that have spoken not always in terms of declassified information, but in terms that are clearly informed by information available to us collectively through all channels, whether that is information that is nonpublic. much of this is information that was crystal clear to the casual observer. the movement of the troops, the preparation that they are undertaking, you need not be sitting in langley, virginia to know what that suggests, and whether that is commercial or satellite imagery, whether it is social media, or whether that is what the russian government itself is saying. what they and tempt to explain away, the movement of tens of

thousands of troops into belarus, using whatever explanation is the explanation d u jour. these things cannot be disguised or obtuse gated -- obfuscated. we are working on prudent preparation based on what we know russia has done in the past , and what we are deeply concerned that they may seek to do going forward. >> are you feeling intelligence squeeze at all? the intelligence is being questioned by the ukrainians. while neither are in langley, they are on different sides of the conflict. >> we are sharing information and intelligence with our ukrainian partners. we do that with our european

allies as well. i do not think that, aside from a dissident perspective -- dissonant perspective in moscow that relies on russian disinformation, aside from that perspective, i don't think you are hearing doubt about what the russians are capable of and the concern that their military movements have engendered around the world. >> why do you -- i would also say, the last time the u.s. and the british tag teamed on intelligence reporting, i'm old enough to remember what happened after that. going bac kto langley, how did they do on protecting

afghanistan and what would happen with the withdrawal of u.s. troops? sec. price: you know as someone who used to work there that intelligence is intelligence analysis. analysis is based on the best available input. the number of challenges that our intelligence community has approached with precision in a way that has allowed policymakers to make informed decisions that have saved american lives and advanced american interests and have forestalled crises and challenges around the world, they are far greater than the episode you may be referring to. >> greater than the iraq war? sec. price: i'm speaking to the number over time and the experience before and after 2003. i don't speak for any institution but the state

department but i can say as a historical matter, you have heard from intelligence community leaders and american leaders in the ensuing years of the steps that have taken place and the corrective measures that were put into place after 2003. this is not analogous. anyone who would seek to claim that clear indications of russia amassing forces along the ukrainian borders, inside belarus, the disinformation they are taking part in, their own contingency planning that is ongoing, all of that speaks to the great concern that we have. that our allies and partners share. >> understandable, but when you get things so catastrophically wrong in high-profile cases, it

stands to reason that people are going to question the analysis, even when there are obvious signs of something imminent happening. sec. price: i think that you just said it. there are obvious signs for concern. i have not heard and informed set of observers question why there is a need to be concerned. over 100 thousand russian troops encircling the ukraine, from russia, within belarus for the clear disinformation emanating from moscow that we have invoked here and that the u.s. government has done as well. if anybody not in moscow would like to offer innocuous explanations, ignoring the history and what we are seeing with our own eyes, i think that

would be a difficult argument to make. >> have there been any conversations over this build in belarus? i know you said if there were an invasion it would be launched -- but what leverage do you have given that it has not been deterred by any sanctions we have seen in the past year? >> we have been very clear to belarusian authorities directly that if it allows it to be used for an attack on the ukraine it would be a swift and decisive response from the united states. you are right that the regime in minsk is subject already to u.s. and international sanctions. this would be of a categorically different question, and we have spoken of the unprecedented nature of sanctions and economic measures in the event of an

invasion. what should be a sovereign independent country -- if a country were to support such an invasion, our response would be swift and decisive. >> diplomatic channels? >> we have an embassy there, we have ambassador julie fisher there. we are still engaged diplomatically. >> there were reports over the weekend including today click particular division that some troops have pulled back from the border areas. have you seen any indication that some troops have departed? >> i am not immediately familiar with those reports. you heard this from tori new noolan yesterday that we

have consistently called for de-escalation and we have not seen that. >> there was a call today between -- the palestinians have confirmed that they discussed among many issues that they discussed the reopening of the congress. sec. price: i can confirm that the president did have a call with the palestinian president. as you know, we have prioritized re-engagement with the palestinian people. to continue those conversations. we will have a written readout. there is a discussion of the broader relationship as well as the need to improve the quality

of life for the palestinian people. something that the united states and our palestinian partners have supported. they also discussed the need for reform. secretary lincoln made the point that he consistently has, and the point that undergirds the approach here, our belief that the israelis and palestinians alike deserve to live with equal measures of security, freedom, prosperity and dignity. it may sound similar to that. >> [inaudible] sec. price: i don't have anything to add. >> amnesty international has

said that they are issuing a report tomorrow. do you have a comment? have you read the report or seen a synopsis? sec. price: i understand that the report has not been released. we will not comment until we have had the opportunity to see it. that is not language that we have used or whatever use. >> israel is set to destroy a palestinian neighborhood reservoir that they use for drinking water. are you aware of this issue? would you call on the israelis to step back? sec. price: we are aware of the issue. applies equally here. it would be critical for the -- for israel to avoid exacerbating

behavior that would inhibit a two state solution. >> [inaudible] today they turned in the report. did they share it with you? sec. price: as of earlier today we had not yet seen a final report from the israeli government. you heard me say this before. we continue to support an investigation that is thorough and comprehensive into the situation and we welcome receiving an additional -- as soon as possible.

>> [inaudible] >> just announced he will notify congress of his intent to visit qatar. is qatar playing any role with iran to free the american hostages there or to bridge the gap between the countries to rejoin the jcpoa? sec. price: the visit you just mentioned takes place within the context of the amir to the white house. it makes the amir the first head of state to visit in this calendar year and the first gulf leader to visit washington during this administration. i think this speaks to the bond that we have. it is a relationship that has never been stronger, tower

extraordinary partnership across any number of challenges. we have spent a great deal of time from this podium speaking to the partnership and cooperation that we have with qatar, in the context of afghanistan. qatar's extraordinary support hosting individuals who have been evacuated from afghanistan and are continuing to play an important role, and the ongoing efforts to relocate individuals from afghanistan, whether american citizens or lawful permanent residents or afghan's to whom we have a special commitment. the relationship extends beyond which speaks to the announcement that you just referenced. i don't have anything to add from a qatari role in iran

beyond stating what you have heard before. the relief of americans and third-party nationals who are being unjustly detained is a top priority for the united states. -- it is something -- that the full teams are focused on as we continue negotiations. >> [inaudible] sec. price: i don't have anything specific on that. you know michelle and i, where we fall in terms of the rishaad -- assad regime and the crimes that the regime has perpetrated

against its own people. now is not the time for normalization. now continues to be the time for accountability. >> the united states has reports that it plans to --$66 million for -- to support the members of our military. do you send a notification to the congress? is that accurate? sec. price: i can confirm that the administration has notified congress of the intent to provide additional support to the forces. we want to ensure that the lebanese armed forces are able to carry out the duties and functions including the ability to defend lebanon's territorial

integrity and to preferred stability. since 2006, the u.s. investments have enabled lebanese military to contribute to the degradation of isis and lebanon, to carry out operations against al qaeda and to expand control along the border with syria. lebanese armed forces have been at the forefront of responding to the various crises that are affecting the state of lebanon. in support of the emergency response to the beirut blast in august. >> can you be more specific? how much additional assistance is going to the lebanese military? my understanding is you are moving $67 million from the military to the military. it's not additional.

in fact, it really means nothing because you're just -- well.' sec. price: i'm not in the position to provide additional detail at this time. >> one more. i know that you tweeted about this last night, but in terms of the attempted missile attack on the uae, do you have any reason to believe that it was specifically timed to the visit of the israeli president? and what is it going to take for you guys to step up? your pressure on the huttis. i'm not just talking about a paper designation. what do they have to do before you realize, or before you take

action against them and to the people for whom they serve as proxies. sec. price: i would be interested in hearing your definition of significant action and how that compares to the interventions and in terms of working with the international community, to shine a spotlight on their conduct, to ensure accountability for their continued attacks, including their continued attacks against our partners in the region. in terms of motivation, i cannot point to a motivation specifically beyond the fact that this was not the first time that the uae and abu dhabi have endured and attempted huuti attack.

this is a challenge that we are very focused on, in terms of providing support -- consuming those leaders with appropriate authority and tools, that will hold them accountable and will constrain their ability to engage in this type of reprehensible behavior, and even as we do that, speaking with the saudis and other regional partners, the u.n. special envoy, to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict in yemen. this is a conflict that they have been able to leverage to their advantage. the sooner by which we can find a means to bring about a diplomatic solution in yemen, we will be better positioned across all of these challenges.

>> [inaudible] sec. price: the power vacuum that has existed in yemen since 2015. >> do you think the u.s. policy has played any role? what you're saying now, this is a conflict -- sec. price: u.s. policy is focused on finding a diplomatic solution to this, not only to bring about greater levels of stability and security in yemen but to put an end to or to alleviate the humanitarian emergency affecting 16 million yemenis. part of that is due to long-standing factors but part of that is due to what we are seeing on the ground in terms of these offenses. this is a question of international peace and security, eight question of

humanitarian concern and something that we are intensely focused on. >> [inaudible] sec. price: we discussed it in this room last week. the president has noted that it is a tool under review. i don't have any updates to add to that. >> north korea launched its longest range ballistic missiles. with each launch we have seen this year, you have issued the same statement condemning it and calling on them to talks. are you alarmed about this spate of missile launches? sec. price: we have made no secret about our concern, the concern that we have had, that we have seen emanate from the dprk, the concern that we have from our allies in the indio pacific and in concern to our allies and partners around the

globe. the dprk's ballistic missile and nuclear weapons program is long-standing. it is a challenge that has vexxed successive administrations. we have developed an approach that added center seeks to find. to achieve the complete denuclearization of the korean peninsula. it is a challenge and an approach that we continue to speak about with our allies including our allies in the region. even as we seek to find ways to address this challenge diplomatically, we are looking to move forward with different steps to hold the dprk responsible and accountable. this month we post sanctions on eight dprk-link entities. they supported their weapons of mass destruction and ballistic

missile programs. we continue to discuss this challenge in the u.n. as well. >> we are one week out -- would you call it a coup? if not, why not? is a coup assessment underway? sec. price: we are evaluating the impact of these actions on our engagement with the country and with authorities working. it is too soon to get into the specifics. we have called for restraint by all actors as we carefully review the events on the ground for any. potential impact. we have paused most assistance for the government of burkina faso as we monitor the situation. thank you very much.

oday. >> u.s. secretary commerce secretary talked with politico about her work in the biden administration and being the first female governor of rhode island. >> i'm joined today by commerce secretary gina raimondo. she became the first female governor of rhode island and is commerce