0 kabul. and we are grateful for their commitment and dedication to the united states. i can confirm the vast majority of our staff and the immediate family members have been evacuated or are currently on the grounds of the karzai international airport. we're actively working to evacuate remaining staff and we have been in direct contact with them. these employees have served the united states. they have not only worked for us, they have worked with us. they are our colleagues as you heard us say before, our embassies around the world simply could not function without locally employed staff. and we will continue to do everything we can to bring them to safety. with that, matt? >>. >> so before you came out here, your colleague had a number of questions to you. you can thank her that for later, some of which involved the -- some of the numbers you just went through. she gave some of those as well. but there are three things that i want to ask. can you be extremely brief in the answers. the i don't need long answers. do you have numbers after you just given us the asset numbers, do you have numbers or do those include nprs? do you have numbers for remaining siv snz do you have number for p-1, p-2 applicants? and in terms of the broader universe of at risk afghans, do you have numbers for those? secondly, she punted on the idea of a diplomatic presence post august 31st. i presume they did that because there isn't any decision. so can you bring us up to date if there is or is not? and what the negotiations are like? and then the last one on that and i got one more after this quick is the airport. and the negotiations on who would run if anyone would. >> great. let me take those in order. i know there is untense interest in the numbers. as you heard today as you heard from the secretary over the past couple days, we have committed to providing all of you and in turn the american people with as precise figures we can. we're going to continue in repatriating the citizens. when it comes to sivs, what i can say is we have reached over the course of the past couple weeks since august 14th to thousands of upon thousands of sivs, those are principle applicants, siv principle applicants as well as their families members. they can bring as many people to safety as quickly as possible. so in many cases, we are going to be in a better position to provide you fidelity on numbers in the coming days and the coming weeks. it's on as many planes as we k the counting we'll be able to do in more detail in the coming days. sivs, we reached out to thousands upon thousands. when it comes lawful permanent residents. we have message in lprs since august 14th. west provided instructions to american citizens and also provided an opportunity for lprs to indicate their in in relocating to the united states. so again, we don't have precise figures to provide on that right now. >> are negotiations over both a possible on going continuing dup diplomatic presence and the airport? is there anything new there on either? >> i'll say a couple things on the diplomatic presence. there are a number of issues implicated in a decision like this. first and foremost, this is always the case but acutely the cause after yesterday. is the safety, is the security of the americans who would be part of that mission, the secretary of state, the president of the united states and this full team wants to be confident that our people serving overseas, diplomats, service members, others are in a position to operate as safely and securely as possible. so that is a big piece of business. we're also discussing these broader issues with a range of our international partners. again this is not just a question that the united states will have to decide for itself. every country around the world will need to make a sovereign decision about any diplomatic presence in kabul, in afghanistan going forward. >> but i'm telling you, we are coordinating with our international partners. again, to share ideas, to ensure that we're sending the appropriate signals and messages to the taliban. the taliban -- who by the way, have been quite clear and quut open in the fact that they would like other countries to retaun retain their diplomatic missions. we appreciate the embassies that remain open and didn't close, we assure them of safety and protection. this gets back to the point that the taliban have self interests here as well. >> the chinese and russians are not exactly -- anyway, there is notization. >> it is something we're actively discussing with our partners and thinking about here as well. >> and the airport, those discussions still continue? >> well, i know there's been intense interest in the airport. so let me just spend a moment on that. maybe if someone else wants to hear all that, i just want to know if there is a decision. yes or no? >> excuse me. >> on who if anyone is going to run it afterward? >> matt, i -- >> i don't want to hear the whole thing, they can x. >> i assume as a journalist you would be interested in hearing the context here. upon our departure, we'll guf the airport back to the afghan people. this is not for us to decide. >> that's what i'm asking. i'm asking if there is another decision, that you're aware of and who is going to run the airport, if anyone after the 31st. then the last thing, i won't ask another question at all. there was a briefing that was given to hill staffers and members of congress a little while ago in which a senior pentagon official, maybe misspoke, maybe people misheard it, but said, apparently, that the u.s. does not believe that isis is not a threat to the united states. is that correct? is that the administration's position? >> matt, i don't -- i have not heard that comment. so i couldn't -- >> regardless whether you heard it or not, is that -- is the administration's position now that isis and al qaeda do not present a threat to the united states? >> i would need to know more about the context of that specific quote. let me be clear this president has made certain and he has maud clear in no ambiguous terms that we will continue to confront using every appropriate tool, groups like al qaeda, groups like isis, any group around the world wherever it is that would potentially pose a threat to the united states and our people. yes? >> only airports, i don't know if you've seen but just now there are a number of pictures and reports on twitter from various accounts that taliban units are moving into -- or towards -- into the kabul airport. have you seen that? has the united states military seen that? >> so my colleague at the white house was just asked about this as well. what dod has spoken to is retro grade planning, the fact that we certainly intend to complete our mission by august 31st. i'm just -- >> did you speak about the pictures were not -- this is just happening like the past half an hour. >> yep. i don't have any response to that. but if there is any change in dod retro grade operations or timing, they need to be the ones to speak to that. >> u.s. forces would not be at the airport through the end of the day on august 31st? >> again, any timing operation when it comes to retro grade operations, the department of defense would need to speak to. that our people, those under chief of mission authority on the ground will leave the country as part of those operations. ultimately, dod will need to speak to the timing of those operations. >> wouldn't that affect the remaining evacuations of any remaining u.s. citizens or afghans who have permission to leave under the auspices? >> what i'll say generally, and this is the point that dod made, is that retro grade is not like turning a light switch. it is not off at one minute and on the next. this is a transition from a full scale evacuation to a retro grade and departure. as for the mechanics of that, i need to refer to dod. >> i want to continue a little bit on recognition and aid. so there is -- we're seeing the reality sinking in it europe about taliban and they're accepting all that have to deal with the group. where is the united states on that? i know the focus is on the evacuation. the urgent element of that is providing humanitarian aid. since there is quite a butt of uncertainty about the airport as well, do you have express through commitment to provide that. so how exactly are you going to do it? >> in that it is something that we are in regular, constant contact with our allies and partners around the world to discuss. you referenced some statements from unnamed european countries. there have been actual formal communications from including some of our closest allies in the world in the context of the g-7 and the context of nato in the context of other groupings. >> what you're referring to is a separate question from recognition. a separate question from conferring legitimacy. but what i will say is that these are questions that we're discussing with our european partners and beyond. as i believe you heard, our dpu it you secretary, every other day convenes a group of nearly 30 countries including nato allies and in the pacific region to discuss issues that are tactical and operational and also strategic in terms of what any relationship with the future government of afghanistan will look like. are not questions we're prepared to answer today because we have heard a range of statements from the taliban, some of them have been positive, some of them have been constructive. but ultimately, what we will be looking for, what our international partners will be looking for are deeds, not words. what we are going to be focused on and questions of any future diplomat uk presence, any questions of recognition, any questions of assistance is follow-through. again, deeds not words. humanitarian assistance is a separate issue. and we have proven in context that are varied and really encompass the globe that we can maintain a humanitarian commitment to in this case the afghan people in ways that does not have any funding or assistance past through the coffers of the general government. i think the united states will be a generous donor to the afghan people over the past 20 years. it's nearly $4 billion. it is a quarter of a million -- excuse me, a quarter of a billion dollars we allocated just this summer and the president just a few days ago allocated another $500 million to support internally displaced persons inside afghanistan, afghan refugees and afghans around the world that need assistance. yes? >> diplomatic presence, has the taliban directly, explicitly asked the u.s. in your conversations to keep the diplomatic presence? and if yes, what assurances have they provided for this security, et cetera? and also on the locally employed staff, vast majority out, can you talk about that? and how many are still not out or about to be out? >> in terms of diplomatic recognition and what we heard from the taliban, we have heard the -- >> excuse me, presence. we have heard the same thing from the taliban privately that they have been saying publicly. the i referred a moment ago to a public taliban statement that they want to remain open. they made very clear to us in our communication they would like to see an american diplomatic presence remain. ultimately, of course, it's not up to taliban. it's a determination that we will need to make consistent with the overriding prerogative and that is the safety and security of american officials. it is a decision we plan to discuss and confer with our allies and partners as well. we assure them of the safety and froection. those are the same assurances we received in private. i can tell you, we don't put all that great value on, again, words. what we're going to be looking for is an indication that there is substance that, there is merit to those statements. an indication that there will be follow-through before we make any such decisions. remind me of the second question? >> the number of -- >> on the number of locally engaged staff, there have been hundreds moved to safety in recent days. that is the vast majority of our locally engaged staff and family members. we don't have numbers. the vast majority are now safely out of afghanistan or at the airport compound. >> evacuated -- evacuation related questions. first off, there are reports that private planes are trying to fly into the airport to evacuate afghans but were turned away and told by the united states to not land. do you know if those reports are true? >> i would need to refer to the u.s. military to speak to those reports. what i can say is this has been a highly effective operation when it comes to the evacuation. you need look no further than, again, the metric that matters. that is 110,600 people through u.s. military and coalition flights since august 14th. this is an operation that requires great deal of coordination. it is an operation that requires a great deal of choreography. any airport around the world, especially one as busy as this, look, karzai international airport know it is not chicago o'hare. it is the size of an airport of a fairly small town. so the orchestration and he could and coordination to have mult charter other aircraft to be able to take off every 45, every half hour -- every 45 minutes, every half hour, that is indeed a pretty sophisticated bit of business that i need to refer to dod on that front. >> the other part of that, some reports is that united states is telling other countries to not accept any planes of afghans at this pount s that true? >> that we're telling other kun truz not to accept planes? >> yes? >> we're very warmly welcoming countries around the world who have opened their doors, who opened their borders, who put forward offers to accept afghan refugees. the united states has demonstrated incredible generosity as we often do in these times. but this will need to be a global effort. and we've been gratified that countries around the world have indicated a willingness to host afghan refugees and we continue to urge additional countries to do even more. >> and then one more kind of broader question. you said that some of the american citizens that actively decided not to leave afghanistan. i think we talked here -- maybe we have -- about reasons why they may not want to leave. specifically that they might not want to leave family members who don't have visas or are american citizens or don't have passports to get out. so i wonder if it this is something that state department is looking at addressing more broadly, changing some of the visa requirements or citizenship requirements or that the ability to allow more people, family members, to come out so these american citizens don't have to make the choice between their safety and leaving their parents, loved ones, children behind. >> let me mach a couple broad points. number one, the number of individuals with whom we've been in contact who say that they don't wish to leave because they don't wish to leave their extended family behind. it is relatively small. especially when you look at the universe of american citizens that we repatriated, it is a relatively small number. but number two, when we talk about this this is important to understand the context around these numbers. the people we're in touch with, the individuals we believe to be american citizens we're in touch with, that number will fluctuate. it will be dynamic. precisely because, especially as we get to a smaller and smaller universe of american citizens, they are making these decisions and sometimes reversing the decisions multiple times a day. so when we say that we're in regular contact, we mean regular contact. multiple times a day. sometimes hearing one answer. other times hearing another. as the remaining americans make these decisions. look, i'm not aware of any plans to change eligibility for visa requirements. we have a special commitment to american citizens. that special commitment is spelled out very clearly in 22 u.s. code section 4802 to american citizens. what i will say and the pount that is relevant to this is that our military operation will come to an end by august 31st. what does not have an expiration date is our commitment to any american who for whatever reason decides not to take us up on to say i want help. i want assistance. now the tactics that may be available to us depending on where we are given all the questions you've asked about, they may be different. in fact, they almost certainly will be different. at least in the near term. but our kmutment to american citizens will not change. and american citizens who has extended family, those extended family members may be eligible to travel to united states. and we talked about the forms of eligibility. so again, august 31st is the end of the u.s. military operation. it is not the end of our commitment. you couple that with what we heard from the taliban about their commitment to safe passage, not only on august 31st. they have not again that, is something we have to continue to press with the international community. this is about the follow-through. one point i make on this. one thing i did see just as i was coming down. again, put this into the category of for what it is worth. but on luf television, they said afghan orders are willing to travel in and out of afghanistan. that is the it rags of the commitment we have seen. what matters to us is that that rhetoric is transformed into reality. that is something we're working on behind the scenes with our allies and partners around the world. >> are you aware of any u.s. citizens who were killed in yesterday's attacks that were not mult or any, you know, civilians? that accountability was complete shortly after we received word of the attacks. >> what is the state department's position on the opposition force that's cropped up across afghanistan? you are supportive of these? >> so our position is the same position that we had yesterday for august 14th. before august 1st going back. this is what we have sought to facilitate and to support for quite a while now. this is the effort in doja. it is still the effort that is on going. and now it is an effort that has that is personnel on the ground in kabul or actually working on this as well. this is one we have to work with. it needs to be inclusive. ultimately, it needs to be a government that respects and upholds the rights of its citizens. importantly, that includes the many market gains that afghanistan's women and girls, minorities have made with the help of the united states over the past 20 years. that's what we're looking for. you said amany people will be evacuated before august 31st. that implies that some people are not going to be on a plane leaving the country. what is the u.s. government's best estimate of how many people will still need help leaving afghanistan after august 31st? we have always sought to be clear about this. and sought not to sugar-coat what will be a time of great uncertainty and a time of great fear, a time of concern for many afghans. and most of those afghans will not fall within the categories that we have been talking about. american citizens, green card holders, sivs, les, p-1, p-2. the rise of the taliban is of great concern to many afghans. well beyond the categories. really astounding numbers when it comes to evacuation. the commitment to help those in need and that includes american citizens who for whatever reason decide to stay behind to sivs who were not in a position to evacuate before august 31st to others who fall within the categories. but others who may not yet be in those categories. that commitment will remain firm after august 31st. this is a commitment the united states has. it is a similar commitment we heard from our allies and partners. one important piece to this are these commitments on the part of the taliban to safe passage. another piece, another important piece is this business of the airp