effort under way to control mosquitoes there and pregnant women have been urged to stay away from the neighborhood we're focused on. we'll keep working as one team, federal, state and local to try to slow the spread of the virus. our public health experts do not expect to see the kind of widespread outbreaks of zika here that we have seen in brazil or in puerto rico. the kind that are most likely to carry zika are limited to certain regions of our country but we cannot be complacent because we expect to see more zika cases. even though the symptoms for most people are mild, many may never know they have it. we have seen that the complications for pregnant women and their babies can be severe. so i want to encourage every american to learn what they can do by going to cdc.gov.

in addition congress needs to do its job. helping costs money. research into new vaccines and the first clinical trials in humans. that cost money. that's why my administration proposed an urgent request for more funding back in february. not only did the republican let congress not pass our request, they worked to cut it then they left for summer recess without passing any new funds for the fight against zika. the experts at the cdc, the folks on the frontlines have been doing their best by moving funds from other areas but now the money we need is rapidly running out. the situation is getting critical. for instance without sufficient funding nih clinical trials and the possibilities of a vaccine well within reach could be delayed. so this is not the time for

politics. more than 40 u.s. service members have now contracted zika overse overseas. in 50 u.s. states we know of more than 1,800 cases of zika connected to travel to infected areas including nearly 500 pregnant women. zika is present in every part of puerto rico and now we have the first local transmission in florida and there will be more. and meanwhile, congress is on a summer recess. a lot of folks talk about protecting americans from threats. well zika is a serious threat to americans, especially babies right now. so once again, i want to urge the american people to call their members of congress and tell them to do their job, deal with this threat, help protect the american people from zika. with that, i'm going to take some questions. i'm going to start with someone who just assumed the second most powerful office in the land,

jeff mason, the new correspondent's association president also from reuters. thank you, jeff. >> happy birthday. >> thank you very much. >> as islamic state loses territory you and other officials have said that it is becoming a more traditional terrorist group. are you satisfied that the united states and its allies have shifted strategy efficiently? secondly, given your comments about donald trump's lack of fitness to be president, are you concerned he will be receiving security briefing about isis and other sensitive national security issues? >> i'm never satisfied with our response because if you're satisfied, that means the problem is solved an it's not. so we just spent a couple hours meeting with my top national security folks to look at what more can be done.

it is absolutely necessary for us to defeat isil in iraq and syria. it is not sufficient but it is necessary. because so long as they have those bases, they can use their propaganda to suggest that somehow there's still some caliphate being born and that can insinuate itself then in the minds of folks who may be willing to travel there or carry out terrorist attacks. also destabilizing at a time when the region is already unstable. i am pleased with the progress that we have made on the ground in iraq and syria. we're far from freeing mosul and raqqah but what we have shown is that when it comes to conventional fights, isil can be beaten with partners on the

ground so long as they have got the support from coalition forces that is we have been providing. in the meantime though you're seeing isil carry out external terrorist acts and they have learned something they have adapted from al qaeda which at a much more centralized operation and tried to plan very elaborate attacks. what'sle has figured out is if they can convince a handful of people or even one person to carry out an attack on a subway or at a parade or, you know some other public venue and kill scores of people as opposed to thousands of people, it still creates the kinds of fear and concern that elevates their

profi profile. so in some ways rooting out these networks for smaller less complicated attacks is tougher because it doesn't require as many resources on their part or preparation. but it does mean that we have got to do even more to generate the intelligence and to work with our partners in order to degrade those networks. and the fact is is that those networks with probably sustain themselves even after isil is defeated in raqqah and mosul. but what we have learned from our efforts to defeat al qaeda is that if we stay on it, our intelligence gets better. and we adapt as well. and eventually we will dismantle these networks also. this is part of the reason why,

however, it is so important for us to keep our eye on the ball and not panic, not succumb to fear because isil can't defeat the united states of america or our nato partners. we can defeat ourselves though if we make bad decisions and we have to understand that as painful and as tragic as these attacks are that we are going to keep on grinding away, preventing them wherever we can using a whole government effort to knock down their propaganda, disrupt their networks, take their key operatives off the battlefield and that eventually we will win. but if we -- if we start making

bad decisions, indiscriminately killing civilians, instituting offensive religious tests on who can enter the country, you know, those kinds of strategies can end up back-firing because in order for us to ultimately win this fight, we cannot frame this as a clash of civilizations between the west and islam. that plays exactly into the hands of isil and the perversion -- per verse interpretations of islam they're putting forward. as far as mr. trump, we are going to go by the law which is that both tradition and the law that if somebody is a nominee, the republican nominee for president, they need to get

security briefing so that if they were to win, they are not starting from scratch in terms of being prepared for this office. and i'm not going to go into details of the nature of the security briefings that both candidates receive. what i will say is that they have been told these are classified briefings and if they want to be president, they got to start acting like president and that means being able to receive these briefings and not spread them around. >> are you worried about that? >> well, i think i've said enough on that. mary bruce. >> thank you mr. president. what did your response to cri c critics who say the $400 million in cash that you sent to iran was a ransom payment? was it a pure coincidence, a

payment held up for almost four decades was suddenly sent at the exact same time that the american prisoners were released? can you assure the american people none of that money went to supporter or? >> some of you may recall, we announced these payments in january. many months ago. there wasn't a secret. we announced them to all of you. josh did a briefing on them. this wasn't some nefarious deal. at the time we explained that iran had a claim before the international try bunle about them recovering money of theirs we had frozen, that as a consequence of its working its way through the international

try bunle it was the assessment of the lawyers that there was significant litigation at risk and we could end up costing ourselves billions of dollars. it was their advice and suggestion that we settle. and that's what these payments represent. and it wasn't a secret. we were completely open with everybody about it and it's interesting to me how suddenly this became a story again. that's point number one. point number two, we do not pay ransom for hostages. we've got a number of americans being held all around the world and i meet with their families and it is heartbreaking, and we have stood up an entire section of interagency experts who devote their time to working with these families to get these americans out. but those families know that we

have a policy that we don't pay ransom. and the notion that we would somehow start now in this high-profile way and announce it to the world even as we're looking into the faces of other hostage families whose loved ones are being held hostage and say to them that we don't pay ransom defies logic. so that's point number two. we do not pay ransom. we won't in the future. precisely because if we did, then we would start encouraging americans to be targeted much in the same way that the countries that do pay ransom end up having a lot more of their citizens being taken by various groups. point number three, is that the timing of this was in fact

dictated by the fact that as a consequence of us negotiating around the nuclear deal, we actually had diplomatic negotiations and conversations with iran for the first time in several decades. so the issue is not so much that it was a coincidence as it is that we were able to have a direct discussion. john kerry could meet with the foreign minister which meant our ability to clear accounts on a number of different issues at the same time converged. and it was important for us to take advantage of that opportunity both to deal with this litigation risk that had been raised, it was important for us to make sure that we finished the job on the iran nuclear deal, and since we were in a conversation with them, it was important for us to be able to push them hard in getting these americans out. and let me make a final point on this.

it's now been well over a year since the agreement with iran to stop its nuclear program was signed. and by all accounts it has worked exactly the way we said it was going to work. you will recall that there were all these horror stories about how iran was going to cheat and this wasn't going to work and iran was going to get $150 billion to finance terrorism and all these kinds of scenarios. and none of them have come to pass. and it's not just the assessment of our intelligence community. it's the assessment of the israeli military and intelligence community, the country that was most opposed to this deal that acknowledges this has been a game changer and that iran has abided by the deal and that they no longer have the

sort of short-term breakout capacity that would allow them to develop nuclear weapons. so what i'm interested in is if there's some news to be made, why not have some of these folks who were predicting disaster say you know what, this thing actually worked. now, that would be a shock. that would be impressive. if some of these folks who had said the sky is falling suddenly said you know what, we were wrong and we are glad that iran no longer has the capacity to break out in short term and develop a nuclear weapon. but of course that wasn't going to happen. instead what we have is the manufacturing of outrage and a story that we disclosed in in january and the only bit of news relevant is the fact that we paid cash which brings me to my last point.

the reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with iran that we couldn't send them a check. and we could not wire the money. and it is not at all clear to me why it is that cash as opposed to a check or a wire transfer has made this into a news story. maybe because it kind of feels like some spy novel or, you know, some crime novel because cash was exchanged. the reason cash was exchanged is because we don't have a banking relationship with iran which is precisely part of the pressure that we are able to apply to them so that they would ship a

whole bunch of nuclear material out and close down a bunch of facilities that as i remember two years ago, three years ago, five years ago was people's top fear and priority that we make sure iran doesn't have breakout nuclear capacity. they don't. this worked. josh letterman. >> thank you, mr. president. repeatedly now donald trump said this election will be rigged against him. i'm alcoh challenging the core our system. can you promise the american people the election will be conducted in a fair way and are you worried comments like his can erode the public's faith in the outcoming election? if we does will, what will you say to the american people? >> at the end of the day it's

the american people's decision. i have one vote. i have the same vote you do. i have the same vote that all the voters who are eligible all across the country have. i offered my opinion but ultimately it's the american people's decision to make collectively. and if somebody wins the election and they are president, then my constitutional responsibility is to peacefully transfer power to that individual and do everything i can to help them succeed. it is -- i don't even know where to start on answering this question. of course, the elections will not be rigged. what does that mean? the federal government doesn't run the election process. states and cities and communities all across the country, they're the ones who

set up the voting systems and the voting booths and if mr. trump is suggesting that there is a conspiracy theory that is being propagated across the country including in places like texas where typically it's not democrats who are in charge of voting booths, that's ridiculous. that doesn't make any sense and i don't think anybody would take that seriously. now, we do take seriously as we always do our responsibilities to monitor and preserve the integrity of the voting process. if we see signs that a voting machine or system is vulnerable to hacking, then we inform those local authorities who are running the elections that they need to be careful. if we see jurisdictions that are

violating federal laws in terms of equal access and are providing grants for disabled voters or discriminating in some fashion or otherwise violating civil rights laws, then the justice department will come in and take care of that. but this will be an election like every other election. and i'm -- i think all of of us at some point in our lives have played sports or maybe played in a school yard or sand box and sometimes folks if they lose they start complaining they got cheated but i never heard of somebody being cheated before the game was over. or before the score is even tallied. my suggestion would be, you

know, go out there and try to win the election. if mr. trump is up 10 or 15 points on election day and ends up losing, then, you know, maybe he can raise some questions. that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. t barbara starr. >> thank you, mr. president. on the question of isis expansion that you have been talking about, because you see them expanding around the world, because you see them trying to inspire attacks, what is your current level of concern about the homeland? you talked about the protection measures but what is your assessment about the possibility your own intelligence advisers suggest it's possible about the direct isis threat to americans? and if i may follow up, what is your assessment today as you stand here about whether donald

trump can be trusted with america's nuclear weapons? >> you know, on your second question and i'll sort of address this to any additional trump questions. i would ask all of you to just make your own judgment. i've made this point already multiple times. just listen to what mr. trump has to say and make your own judgment with respect to how confident you feel about his ability to manage things like our nuclear triad. >> it's suggests that you're not confident. >> well, as i recall i just answered a question about this a couple days ago and i thought i made myself clear and i don't want to keep on repeating it or a variation on it. i obviously have a very strong opinion about the two candidates

running here. one is very positive and one is not so much. and i think you will just hear any further questions that are directed to this subject i think you'll hear pretty much variations on the same thing. what i can say is this is serious business. and the person who is in the oval office and who are secretary of defense and are joint chiefs of staff and are outstanding men, women in uniform report to, they are counting on somebody who has the temperament and good judgment to be able to make decisions to keep america safe. and that should be very much on the minds of voters when they go into the voting booth in november.

in terms of the threat that'sle poses to the homeland, i think it is serious. we take it seriously. and as i said earlier, precisely because they are less concerned about big spectacular 9/11 style attacks, because they have seen the degree of attention they can get with smaller scale attacks using small arms or assault rifles or in the case of nice, france, a truck. you know, the possibility of either a lone actor or a small cell carrying out an attack that kills people is real. and that's why our intelligence and law enforcement and military officials are working around the clock to try to, you know,

anticipate potential attacks, to obtain the threads of people who might be vulnerable to brainwashing by isil. we are constrained here in the united states to carry out this work in a way that's consistent with our laws and presumptions of innocence. and the fact that we prevent a lot of these attacks as effectively as we do without a lot of fanfare and abiding by our law is a testament to the incredible work that these folks are doing. they work really hard at it. but it is always a risk. and some of you may have read

the article in the new york times today, i guess it came out last night online, about this individual in germany who had confessed an given himself up and explained his knowledge of how isil's networks worked. there was a paragraph in there that some may have caught which we don't know for a fact that this is true, but according to this reporting, the individual indicated that'sle recognizes it's harder to get its operatives into the united states but the fact that we have what he referred to as open gun laws meant that anybody, as long as they didn't have a criminal record that barred them from purchase could go in and buy weapons. that made a homegrown extremist

strategy more attractive to them. those are the hardest to stop because if somebody doesn't have a record, if it's not triggering something, it means that anticipating their actions becomes that much more difficult. and this is why the military strategy that we have in syria and iraq is necessary but not sufficient. we have to do a better job of disrupting networks and those networks are more active in europe than they are here but you know, we don't know what we don't know and so it's conceivable there are some networks here that could be activated. but we also have to get to the messaging that can reach a troubled individual over the internet and do a better job of disrupting that. and what i've told my team is that although we have been working on this now for five,

six, seven years, we have got to put more resources into it. this can't be an afterthought. it's something that we have to really focus on. this is also how we work with the muslim american community, the values that we affirm about their patriotism and their sacrifice and our fellow feeling with them is so important. one of the reason that is we don't have networks themselves that are as active here as they are in certain parts of europe is because the muslim american community in this country is extraordinarily patriotic and largely successful. and fights in our military and serves as our doctors and

nurses. and there are communities in which they are raising their kids with love of country and rejection of violence and that has to be affirmed consistently. if be we screw that up, then we're gioing to have bigger problems. gregory court of usa today. >> thank you mr. president. yesterday you commuted the sentences of federal inmates. the largest single grant in the history of the american presidency. i wanted to ask you questions about your clemency thought process. one is you talked about this, low level drug offenders who got mandatory minimum sentences. you also had firearms offenses. given your overall thoughts on firearms can you reconcile that for us and given that previously in your presidency you sent a memo saying there was a sort of

predisposition against firearms. why did you change your mind? also, the other side of the ledger is party. you have granted more come mutations and fewer pardons that any two term president since john adams. why is that? is the focus on commutations taking energy away? finally, just one other thing on pardons. many of your pled predecessors reserve that for their more politically sensitive pardons. do we expect you to do that or would you rule that out? >> i appreciate the question gregory, because i haven't had a chance to talk about this this much. this is an effort i'm really proud of. it is my view shared by democrats and republicans alike in many