MS BRUCE: Hi. Oh, hi. Hi there. Thank you, ma’am. Nice temperature in here. Like outside; it’s a beautiful day outside.

QUESTION: Finally.

MS BRUCE: Finally. I know you control the weather too, Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah, I try. (Laughter.)

MS BRUCE: You should have just done a little bit better.

QUESTION: I try.

MS BRUCE: I was saying somebody better – a few days ago, when it was 28 degrees, that somebody better tell April that she’s not February.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS BRUCE: All right. Here we go. I have a few announcements. So the topper is a little long. I hope it’ll be interesting enough for you. It’s interesting for me.

 All right, welcome aboard everyone. Thank you very much for being here. As this is my first briefing this week, I’d like to wish Christians a blessed Holy Week and Jewish people all around the world a happy Passover.

And now today, as antisemitism surges around the world, our message to Jewish communities remains unchanged: The United States stands with you. We will fight antisemitism with unwavering determination. We will advocate for the safety and security of Jews everywhere.

 And onto something else as well. On the tariffs, the coverage of President Trump’s indefatigable effort to make this country great again involves the herculean effort to change the trading trajectory of this country, which has been placed under a crushing burden of a web of unfair trade arrangements, resulting in American taxpayers being ripped off every single day.

Only President Trump has the vision and the courage to say enough is enough. The United States of America has the great benefit of having the world’s best dealmaker as President. His actions on tariffs have illustrated to our enemies and allies alike that the United States is a nation that should not be taken for granted, and whose fortunes are directly connected to the success of every other nation on this planet.

Through this process, Americans and people of the world over have been reminded about how America has been taken advantage of, and that courtesy of President Trump we have a way to fix the damage done to this nation and the world by the global left. Now with over 130 countries coming to renegotiate their trade relationship with the United States, President Trump has reset not just the trade environment, but has also reminded the world that respect matters and will be expected by President Trump and the people of this nation.

 In announcements for today as well, the State Department has canceled another 139 grants worth $214 million under Secretary Rubio’s direction.

As the Secretary said, quote, “The American taxpayers should not be funding misguided programs…We are cleaning up the mess the previous administration left and rebuilding an agency that’s focused on putting America First.”

 Now, let’s look back to last weekend. Ambassador Steven Witkoff conducted talks with the Iranian foreign minister, which were hosted by the Omani foreign minister. As the White House statement described, quote, “the discussions were very positive and constructive,” and, “the sides agreed to meet again next Saturday.”

Our goal remains clear. In the words of Ambassador Witkoff, quote, “A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal. Any final arrangement must set a framework for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Middle East – meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program. It is imperative for the world that we create a tough, [yet] fair deal that will endure, and that is what President Trump has asked me to do.”

 Also last weekend, Expo 2025 Osaka officially opened on Sunday in Osaka, Japan.  The 31,000-square-foot USA Pavilion showcases American excellence, innovation, and leadership, and reinforces our commitment to engagement in the Indo-Pacific and the U.S.-Japan bilateral relationship.  Over the coming six months, the Expo looks forward to welcoming millions of visitors. 

 Back here at home, Secretary Rubio joined President Trump in welcoming President Bukele to the United States yesterday. Since Secretary Rubio’s visit to El Salvador, the United States has deported dangerous MS-13 and TDA gang members to El Salvador’s prison. Because of this, our nation is safer and more secure.

As Secretary Rubio said of President Trump and President Bukele, “Our hemisphere is lucky to have two leaders who are totally aligned in their commitment to law and order.”

 Last, in non-foreign policy news, I want to applaud the Trump Administration’s FDA on their plan to phase out various animal testing requirements.

As the FDA said in their announcement, quote, “The new approach is designed to improve drug safety and accelerate the evaluation process, while reducing animal experimentation, lowering research and development[al] costs, and ultimately, [lowering] drug prices.” Bravo.

That’s my topper. All right. Now, to your questions. Sir, Mr. Matt Lee, the AP.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy.

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: I just wondered – just a point of clarification. You said that only – only President Trump can undo the damage done to the world – the nation and the world by the global left?

MS BRUCE: I know, surprising that it comes from me.

QUESTION: Unless this has to do with —

MS BRUCE: Isn’t it surprising that that comes from me?

QUESTION: Well, this has to do with – you’re talking about tariffs, right? The whole world free trade – international trade regulations were – began after the Second World War.

MS BRUCE: Well —

QUESTION: And I’m looking at one, Eisenhower; two, Nixon; Reagan —

MS BRUCE: Matt, may I answer you?

QUESTION: — Bush one and Bush two —

MS BRUCE: I know, yes. Yes.

QUESTION: And I find it hard to believe that you’re —

MS BRUCE: Well, there’s something – let me answer you, sir.

QUESTION: Are they part of the global left?

MS BRUCE: Let me answer you. Let me answer you. Everything that starts like world trade, it’s always – there’s always a good idea, right? You always have a really great plan and things move along, and it’s very good and it’s very nice. And then time changes and the left gets control of certain aspects, certain countries, certain congresses, and things begin to change, and spending begins to increase, and arrangements begin to change, and not necessarily as good for the United States. The fact of the matter is at this point in time we are on an unsustainable path, a burden that is crushing. You see it in the actions that this administration has to take regarding the budget of this entire entity. This becomes an addiction. It’s an addiction to other people’s money. And as Margaret Thatcher noted, of course, is that the problem – the main problem with socialism —

QUESTION: Also part of the global left, but —

MS BRUCE: Sir, the main problem with socialism is that – is when you run out of other people’s money, because that eventually happens. I know that’s not perhaps satisfactory for the Associated Press, but I love you anyway, Matt. I love you anyway.

QUESTION: Well, it doesn’t matter whether it’s satisfactory for —

MS BRUCE: But your – your question is, at least my answer to what your statement was, is that at this point in time President Trump is the only person that can undo the leviathan that this trade framework became around the world. And he is doing it, and I have been watching this coverage. The pearl-clutching – it’s been remarkable. This is going to be one of the greatest resets of many resets that the Trump Administration has implemented, and it’s going to make a difference not just for the American people but for all those countries that realize that this has to change. So it’ll be better for the world over.

QUESTION: Well, my point was merely that – are you trying to say that all those presidents and who you just mentioned, Margaret Thatcher, are part of the global left?

MS BRUCE: I can’t believe – I’ve just talked way too much already. I think I’ve answered that. Yes, sir, I think I’ve answered that.

QUESTION: Okay, all right. So on the grants that you just said were canceled – and I want to segue from this – can you be more specific about what those were, the two – what was it – 139, what they are?

MS BRUCE: Well, we’ll get those details.

QUESTION: And then more —

MS BRUCE: What we do know is that the Secretary himself felt passionate enough about this to tweet it himself.

QUESTION: Oh, he did. I’m sorry, I missed that.

MS BRUCE: And that what I stated to you about his commentary was from his account, the Secretary’s tweet at 12:35 p.m. this afternoon.

QUESTION: Yikes.

MS BRUCE: And I’ll read it again, because there’s a couple more details here in the tweet: “Under my direction, the State Department has canceled another 139 grants worth $214 million. The American taxpayers should not be funding misguided programs like ‘Building the Migrant Domestic Worker-Led Movement’ in Lebanon or ‘Get the Trolls Out!’ in the United Kingdom. We are cleaning up the mess the previous administration left and rebuilding an agency that’s focused on putting America First.”

So those are two examples that the Secretary shared. There are – because I’m a mathematician – 137 more. And I’m sure at some point we will —

QUESTION: Well, 137 more what?

MS BRUCE: — I believe that – I’ll tell you what. Let’s see if we can find the full list, and we’ll move ahead accordingly.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. So and that just segues into the broader budget question. You saw the reports yesterday and the day before about the OMB plans for a drastic reduction in the State Department – or the Function 150 budget, which includes State and USAID. What can you tell us about that – or those?

MS BRUCE: I can tell you that throughout the history of the United States everyone has a budget plan, and everyone has ideas for budgets. And every president has a budget plan and sends it to Congress, and then Congress either accepts it or they have their own ideas, which happens more often than not. I can tell you that whatever you’ve seen in public was not released from this entity, it was not released from this department, it was not released by the Secretary; that there is no final plan, final budget, final dynamic. That is up to the White House and the President of the United States as they continue to work on their budget plan and what they will submit to Congress.

So I would suggest that you check with the White House, but kinds of numbers and what we tend to see is reporting that is early or wrong or based on leaked documents from somewhere unknown, and then everyone writes stories about those things. And earlier when I was speaking with our bullpen here, whom I love most of the time, is to be – it would be wise to be cautious before acting on every single element you see leading up to something as important as this budget coming in from President Trump. And so we’ll wait and see. Of course, again, these are not known or finalized or planned. Only President Trump has that information, and we’re going to see it soon, I’m sure.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MS BRUCE: All right, thank you. Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that, though. There was some criticism from Democratic lawmakers about contributions to international organizations dropping by 89 percent from 1.4 billion last year to 169 million, including, quote, “eliminating funding for the UN and NATO.” Is that something that the department is considering, eliminating funding from those agencies?

MS BRUCE: Yeah, that’s – again, that’s from a story that is looking at a memo that was leaked or not from a plan that is a suggestion. What I can tell you, though, is it really makes me concerned when I see the word “eliminate.” I traveled to NATO for that summit with the Secretary. Every meeting, every moment, every time on camera, in every bilateral meeting, talking with the secretary general, the one message – it was – several messages, but the singularly important message that everyone there cared about was the fact that the Secretary of State of the United States reiterated our complete commitment to NATO, as has the President of the United States.

Now, what we also want in our commitment means that we want to make sure and help to make sure that the nations in NATO can actually deliver on the mission of NATO, which is to be a deterrent. It is not to help with wars or to help fight them or to fund them or to make it a little bit better as the wars are going on. NATO was meant to be a collection of entities that would stop the bad actors from doing the bad thing, because it would be very, very bad for them if they did it. And at this point, clearly we’ve got nations that have got to ramp up, share the burden, increase their defense spending – not because we’re meanies but because we are committed to NATO. And NATO has to be the thing that it has been purported to be and expected to be at the beginning and wants to be.

I have to tell you that there is recognition of this fact at NATO – the number of countries increasing their budget commitment to defense, the recognition that it was an important thing without exception. And that’s where when we think about the – a story about eliminating funding to NATO is – couldn’t be further from the truth. This is about making NATO stronger, making NATO – well, dare I say great again. But that’s where it becomes like fear mongering and understandably upsets people.

But as I’ve said with other – with the other review we’ve had with the foreign aid, some things will change, but it doesn’t mean that we’ve changed our commitment to something, but it may look different. That if in fact other nations are coming together and raising their commitment and their contribution, perhaps the American contribution then does come down and yet NATO is stronger. So that is, I think, part of what every family does is looking out for each other, being honest, and providing solutions to that problem. So that story comes from the same speculation that has come from other documents that are moving about when it’s – nothing could be further from the truth and certainly commenting on numbers they might have is not helpful. There will be plenty to discuss when President Trump releases and sends to Congress his budget bill.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. I’ve got one on Syria and one on Yemen. Has the department made any decision or is it reviewing potentially granting visas to any Syrian ministers for the – for next week’s World Bank and IMF meetings?

MS BRUCE: Let’s take that back. I don’t have information on that. It’s a good question, of course, with the meeting coming up. But I’ll have that to you.

QUESTION: And then —

MS BRUCE: And was it Yemen?

QUESTION: Yes. We’ve – obviously, the U.S. has been engaged in a military campaign over there for the past several weeks. Is the State Department leading any diplomatic path to get to whatever end result it is that the U.S. wants? We’ve seen reports that the U.S. is now looking at potentially supporting a ground invasion in Yemen or supporting factions inside of Yemen to push ahead with the momentum after the military campaign?

MS BRUCE: Well, I won’t speak on any negotiations that may or may not be happening or diplomatic considerations. I think many people have seen the reports regarding actions that may or may not be happening on the ground in Yemen as the Houthis’ ability to resist is degraded. That’s not something I can remark on. Of course, though, when we think about the nexus of the nature of what’s happening in the Middle East, the United States has made its point clear, as the Secretary – through the Secretary and through the President, through the ceasefire work, and the nonstop efforts regarding the issues in Israel and on the Gaza Strip, and certainly now in the remarkable fact that Iran is at the table regarding their condition, which has also been affected, of course, by the degrading of Hizballah; certainly the disaster that Hamas has brought that region, including Iran.

So when we think about a ceasefire and making people’s lives better, it certainly affects the entire region, and I think that’s what we can all count on.

Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Tammy, thank you. I – you started out with some of your remarks saying that Iran must stop and dismantle its nuclear program.

MS BRUCE: Well, let me say that was Ambassador Witkoff. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, echoing what Ambassador Witkoff tweeted earlier today. But just trying to get some clarity on what the administrations sees as a potential end goal here with these negotiations with Iran, because last week heading into the talks in Oman, Witkoff made some remarks to The Wall Street Journal in which he said that the red line would be the weaponization of Iran’s nuclear capability, presumably leaving the door open to Iran maintaining a civilian nuclear program. So is the administration open to an end state where Iran does still have a civilian nuclear program, but they are no longer able to speedily get a nuclear weapon?

MS BRUCE: Well, first of all, for a comprehensive response – and we heard from Karoline earlier – the White House has that kind of response. What I can say nevertheless is that the Secretary has been clear – as has the President, as has been the ambassador – that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon or an enrichment program. What we hear – and I said this again to our friends earlier in the day, as I do. Some of you listening from home, I kind of spend about a half hour with our bullpen during the day, and we have some talks and find out what’s on their mind. But what I mentioned – because there’s always a reaction to a single tweet or a remark that’s in a newspaper. And as we are clearly moving to a secondary meeting, which I still won’t call a negotiation, but that could change – is that these are people who are the best in the world. Ambassador Witkoff clearly is one of the best people in the world for negotiating and for dealing with bad actors and getting peace and ceasefires.

But when things are being said in the moment in public, it is – you must consider that these are not – it’s not part of how they negotiate, in the sense of whatever they’re talking about together. And that one should always wait and see that he’s – no one’s negotiating in public. No one is – I don’t know who that message would be for or that nature of what’s said and how and what format. I would say what matters is an end result, our parties agreeing, papers being signed. It is not what people say but the actions they take. We have shown that as a nation, when the actions that we take and the nature of what we commit to – you can combine the two of what say and what we do.

But I would say that there is one goal here and that is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and certainly they – or the enrichment program. And that is, I think, a pretty easy thing to start with, and that is the one thing that we know that they’re working on. And I think we’ll have some success, considering who we’re addressing.

QUESTION: So does —

MS BRUCE: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Iran. You mentioned Ambassador Witkoff’s tweet today. Last night in an interview with Fox News he was talking about keeping Iran’s enrichment levels below 3.67 percent, which is, like, on par with JCPOA. Today he talked about eliminating Iran’s enrichment. So what’s the reason of this difference here?

MS BRUCE: Well, if – you can contact the White House. But what I just noted to you is that these are comments that are made. It could be made by anyone in the moment of something that’s happening. I would point to his comment today on Twitter. But I also – Ambassador Witkoff speaks for himself quite well, and he is very transparent man. What’s going to matter is what is accomplished, what the end result will be, as opposed to parsing one statement or a sentence line there and another one over here. I know we all want answers, because, well, humanity has an interest in the end result of this. But I would just caution you in that regard and to wait. And again, the last – the thing that matters is what is accomplished, what the last point is. And if anyone can do that, it would be President Trump and his vision along with Ambassador Witkoff who has done a great job in this regard.

QUESTION: Follow up?

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: Tammy, thanks so much. A couple of questions on the Palestinian Authority. The Times of Israel reported a few days ago that Mahmoud Abbas had sent a letter to Secretary Rubio trying to open up the door to get certified that the pay-for-slay program has been ended by the Palestinian Authority. I know you’re not going to comment on that correspondence, but in a broader perspective, the State Department is not exactly doling out foreign aid with any enthusiasm at the moment, and the purpose of ending pay-for-slay would be restart foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority. So does the State Department have any appetite at this point to start that process, if the end result is no foreign aid being distributed in the end anyway?

And the second question I have is just the broader bird’s-eye view relationship right now between the U.S. and the Palestinian Authority. Mahmoud Abbas boycotted during the first Trump term, and we’ve seen American officials go to Jerusalem a number of times. Historically they made a corresponding trip to Ramallah or Bethlehem. We haven’t seen that so far. So bird’s-eye view.

MS BRUCE: All right. We – yeah, this – I tend to – I think I always try to give you the bird’s-eye view. But I would say that, first of all, I can’t comment on if there are any negotiations or diplomatic considerations. What I do take issue with immediately is that we’re not – we don’t have any glee or excitement over handing out foreign aid. Our commitment to foreign aid hasn’t changed. It is in our nature as Americans. It’s what we do. I would argue the starting of this country was an aid package for the future. My goodness. And it is certainly – is also – foreign aid is not a carrot or a stick in negotiations. If it’s needed, it’s needed. If it isn’t, it isn’t. We don’t use it in that fashion.

So it’s – I like you very much, and I think you’re a nice guy, but I’m – (laughter) – it’s always disheartening. I don’t want to be mean. Only to Matt I want to be mean. It’s disheartening because – but it reminds me, and I’m glad that I’m here to repeat, for people to not be left with that impression, that it’s not like – oh, we got to give foreign aid. It would be great if nobody needed foreign aid. But we know that we are a country with incredible resources; we know that. And we have incredible responsibilities, and we do not shy away from them. It’s part of why we do what we do. We want to be a part of the world. We know we can help and we do.

So it’s not ever a part of that we just don’t want to do something, and so we’re not. It’s: can we? And it is: can it be done properly? Is it aligned with what’s great for the United States? And mostly also, certainly it is not used as a weapon. And I just want to say that as strongly as I possibly can.

And as far as the nature of what’s happening, we are asked often by many of you in different ways, is that there is a constant, regular commitment to Gaza, to the Gazan people, certainly to one of our strongest if not most stalwart ally, Israel, who have, by the way, a new ambassador from the United States, Ambassador Mike Huckabee. So we’re very excited about the future. We are working constantly to make – to have a ceasefire and to change the trajectory on the ground. That has not stopped.

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up on that?

MS BRUCE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy.

QUESTION: I have a question —

MS BRUCE: No, please.

QUESTION: Meanwhile – meanwhile in Bangladesh, yeah, the – there are so many reports, like The New York Times also before two weeks reported the alarming rise of Islamist terrorists – Islamist extremism in Bangladesh under the Yunus-backed regime, including protesters only – openly displaying Osama bin Ladin’s images, even Nazi symbols like a picture like this from Dhaka —

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: — and targeting American brands like KFC, Coca-Cola with antisemitic rhetoric allegedly incited by figures like —

MS BRUCE: All right.

QUESTION: — advisors of interim government of Bangladesh, alongside —

MS BRUCE: Right. We have – sir, sir, we – I’ve heard you and I know, and I appreciate your passion and the – and Bangladesh is a country with certain issues. They are also a country that we’ve talked about often, certainly with the questions from the crew here. So for a specific dynamic, I’m going to have us take that away.

What I do have is something I want to mention regarding Bangladesh, which is that there’s been an arrest of a UK MP, Tulip Siddiq. The – this is from the Bangladeshi courts have issued that arrest. It is, of course – things – all of this and what you’re discussing, even protests, et cetera, are a matter for the Bangladesh authorities to handle, and of course talking with them matters a great deal as well.

So ultimately, the future of Bangladesh is going to be decided by the Bangladeshi people. They’re facing what you’ve been describing for some – and in others that, of course, we’ve seen the reports as well. And elections matter. I don’t want to sound it trite here, but it’s true. Democracy matters, and actions by people matter to confront issues that might in fact, as we’ve seen over the last 20, 25 years, destroy their lives – it’s pretty clear what the choices are for many nations on this planet. So thank you, sir.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up?

MS BRUCE: Yes, sir, in the – with the beard.

QUESTION: Thanks, Tammy. I want to ask about negotiations with Russia. Has there been any discussion of sanctions relief, and has the White House asked the State Department to draw up any list of sanctions that could be removed?

MS BRUCE: I won’t speak to any discussion between the White House, certainly, and the State Department, Secretary Rubio and any other leader here. What I can say is a reminder that what was clear from the beginning: There would be no negotiations, no decisions, no arrangements until after the carnage has stopped. And after Palm Sunday, it’s clearly a dynamic that – where there have to be more questions about the nature of who’s really committed to peace and a ceasefire. But there is no negotiations or arrangements based on regular statements from the administration and from Secretary Rubio as well – that until the – it’s a meat grinder. That has not changed. And until that stops, there – nothing like that is happening, and yet we continue to work, obviously, for the ceasefire in that regard.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Follow-up to (inaudible)?

QUESTION: Hi, Tammy. Thank you. I have a question about Sudan. The outgoing Biden administration declared the RSF’s actions as a genocide. Does the Trump Administration agree with that designation of genocide?

MS BRUCE: Here’s what I can tell you about what’s been happening. The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the RSF’s continued escalation of attacks on El Fasher, North Darfur, as well as the attacks on nearby Zamzam and Abu Shouk internally displaced persons, which is the IDP camps. We are deeply alarmed by reports the RSF has deliberately targeted civilians and humanitarian actors in Zamzam and Abu Shouk. We condemn the RSF’s attacks on the most vulnerable of civilians, including killings of at least 10 U.S.-funded relief workers providing critical, lifesaving assistance. We urge the protection of civilians, including humanitarian workers. We also call for the opening of humanitarian corridors to enable humanitarian access and the safe passage of civilians fleeing violence.

The belligerents must uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law and must be held accountable.

QUESTION: So are you planning to affirm the designation of genocide?

MS BRUCE: Well, I’m – I’ve made my statement clear, but what this does mark – today marks two years since the start of the conflict in Sudan. And this conflict has caused death, destruction, and a displacement crisis that has the potential to destabilize the entire region, with massive flows of displaced people, arms, and disease. It is past time for the warring parties to put down their guns and negotiate a durable peace that allows for broad-based, participatory dialogue so the Sudanese people can decide their future in a peaceful and unified Sudan.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, just to clarify one (inaudible) – you haven’t answered the question, Tammy.

MS BRUCE: Yes, sir. I’ve answered you. I’ve extensively – answered you quite extensively, sir.

Go ahead, please.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Sudan. I wonder, the previous administration had been involved in trying to facilitate peace talks between the two parties. Are there any such activities going on?

MS BRUCE: Well, I can’t report on anything that is happening or might happen, but again, I think that the Trump Administration and Secretary Marco Rubio have proven their commitment to these kinds of issues in a way that no other administration, frankly, has, in facing these dynamics all around the globe, especially with the nature of the kinds of carnage and the relentlessness. So while I can’t speak to you about specifics, I think that we all know what this administration stands for.

Yes, in the blue jacket.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Tammy. Two questions, briefly. One is in regard of the visit of the Jordanian prime minister today at 3:30, if you can tell us a little bit about the topics that are going to be discussed.

MS BRUCE: No.

QUESTION: I’m assuming Gaza —

MS BRUCE: No – no, I can’t —

QUESTION: Are they – are they going to be talking about Gaza?

MS BRUCE: So nice – you’re so nice with it. The Italian reporter, the nice Italian accent – can you – it’s like, no.

QUESTION: No, I understand. Fine. The second question —

MS BRUCE: There’s plenty to talk about, I’m sure. I mean, we —

QUESTION: Understand.

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: No problem. The second one is regarding the cut announced by Secretary Rubio, if I’m not mistaken, on the funds on United Nation and NATO.

MS BRUCE: That was asked. That was asked. There’s been no —

QUESTION: There were some reports on the —

MS BRUCE: There – well, there was – there’s always some —

QUESTION: That’s what I’m talking about —

MS BRUCE: I love you guys, but there’s always some report.

QUESTION: Can you —

MS BRUCE: And I’ve – I answered very specifically the commitment to NATO is a strong commitment. I was there with the Secretary. That was a singular – really, a main message about our commitment to NATO is as strong, if not stronger. Our presence indicates that, but also our words and our actions indicate that, and our asking our NATO partners to become stronger and more involved in their own defense spending is an indication of that commitment to NATO.

All right, you guys.

QUESTION: Tammy?

MS BRUCE: I think that’s going to – that’s going to be it, you guys, for today. I’ve got —

QUESTION: Can I ask about the Rubio tweet?

MS BRUCE: I have – I have to be somewhere, which is unusual. Normally, it’s only here that I have to be.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on the weekend —

MS BRUCE: What – what – you have a nice weekend, too. I’m sorry. All right, one more.

QUESTION: Sorry, Secretary Rubio shared over the weekend about the 10 men being sent – some 10 additional men being sent to El Salvador. Do you know what – on which authority they were sent? Was it AEA or Title 8?

MS BRUCE: So first of all, he did note that, which means this country is certainly a little bit safer, isn’t it? I would refer you to the Department of Homeland Security and DOJ, which makes those kinds of decisions. I would also note that it was great to have President Bukele here, clearly a remarkable man and such a great ally, helping to make America safer again. And his love for the American people is what – I think pretty obvious, even though he loves El Salvadorans more, I’m sure.

But it was a great weekend in that regard, obviously not a good weekend with certain other actions. But this is a busy administration. It is a country that is standing ready to do what’s necessary to help not just their neighbors but also the rest of the world. We are – we’re not even 100 days in, and it’s – I don’t know about – I’m having a great time. I don’t know about you guys. So I look forward to more, and thank you for that question, and I will see you on Thursday.

Thank you, everyone

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS BRUCE: Except for Matt Lee. (Laughter.)