0 evacuating more people from the country over the coming days and completing the mission to the 31st, and what it means to move to retrograde phase is that there is a rereduction of numbers through the coming days and we will tell you twice a day to show you how we are evacuating the people over the country and the numbers will be going down in the next couple of days and you should anticipate that as part of the retrograde process that needs to take place and the force protection is front and center and vital to the mission. >> one more, president biden told reporters in oval office when meeting with the prime minister about booster shots, and can you tell us about the information of what is the information about that projection -- >> well, let me be clear, the president would rely on guidance of the cdc and the health and experts, and that guidance continues to be eight months. that has not changed, so i want to be clear on that. if they were to change their guidance based on the data for any particular group, he would of course abide by that, and for the people watching at home and you are all reporting this, there is nothing changing about the eight-month time line as relates to the boosters. >> why did they have the conversation happen that sort of triggered from eight to five? >> well, i would say that i can't, and obviously i was not sitting in the meeting and having the discussion with them on this, but as is israel has taken the step of doing six-month boosters and it is the president referenced advice that he had been given information from the prime minister, and obviously, we make our own assessments based on our own experts based here in the united states, and nothing has been changed on that, and maybe a reference to that, and we have ongoing communication with our own health experts. trevor. >> i want to get an update on the president's plans on to leaving the troops and remains in coming to the united states. >> there is no timing there, but i can reiterate to what i said yesterday, the president will continue to honor the servicemen and women who lost their lives yesterday, but vi nothing more to add to that. >> and there is reporting to the taliban requesting ongoing diplomatic presence of the united states, and can you tell us more about what that is about the white house about whether that is appropriate and how or if that would happen after the end of august? >> well, i would say first, we are looking at ways and i will refer to the secretary of the state and the state department here to continue to engage, and i know that this is not your question, but i will get it in here, and the president did say for third-world nationals to evacuate, because in order to evacuate any american to leave third country citizens we will have to coordinate with the taliban and it does not mean or translate into a presence on the ground as we have noted that we are pulling our presence out by the 31st and that has not changed. >> so, the foreign relations has said that we cannot trust the taliban with the attack yesterday, and i don't want to get into the semantics with trust, but are we at the best of the bad options or is the military saying that is the only option given the dynamics on the ground? >> maybe both, and i won't get into the semantic debate, but it is worth repeating as often as i can, and we don't trust the taliban, and there is a reality on the ground. the taliban control large swathes of afghanistan including the area surrounding the perimeter of the airport, and so by necessity, that is the cooperation to get the americans out, and our afghan partners out, and individuals who are eligible for the range of programs the united states has out, and we have evacuated over 105,000 people out, and as a large part of coordinated efforts to get people out, but as the department of defense noted today, clearly something went wrong here in the process that we saw the isis-k attack occur yesterday. we don't have additional information to suggest that it was, you know, intentional or al anything along those lines which is a question that was asked yesterday, but clearly a break in the security process here, and there is no question about that. >> and with the threats around the world, is there a tangible difference in what you are seeing or have seen over the course of the last several days that makes this moment different than what the president was saying a week ago or over 10 days ago? >> i know that you are asking me, too, but i can't clearly get into the specific details from here, but what i think that the reason that we put this out publicly and the way that we did is that yesterday there was an attack yesterday by terrorists that killed 13 members of the u.s. military and it is important for us as the government to be clear about what threat our u.s. forces are facing on the ground as they continue to implement the mission. that threat is acute. it is ongoing. our troops are still in danger, and they are taking the steps they are taking to save lives and evacuate people because of the mission and we felt it is important for people to understand that. go ahead. >> thank, jen. i wanted to ask you about the statement that you pout, and you said that in light of yesterday's attacks the troop there are taking maximum force measures at kabul airport, and what resources are available to them that they didn't have yesterday, because they have the same number of troops and the same amount of equipment. >> any resources they need or request from the president, they will be granted, but i won't get into additional details. >> and i am wondering if the president has any plans to speak to the families of the fallen service members? >> yes, so how this process works is that the next of kin notifications of course happen by the department of defense typically in person to next of kin. i believe they give an update on that and convey that the process is ongoing. the president wouldn't then make a call or reach out until that process is completed. it would be up to the next of kin in the families to determine if they are prepared to receive a call from the president of the united states. i think it is important to note that this may be the worst day of their lives, and they may or may not feel that they are ready to talk to the united states or talk to the president of the united states. that is their choice. but i expect once any calls are completed, we will provide you an update. >> finally, i want to know if the white house has any reaction to these republican lawmakers now calling on the president to resign over this? >> well, nancy, i have to say that seeing some of this occur or be called for or out on twitter the backdrop is that the u.s. men and women from the military deployed on the ground are bravely implementing the mission to save men and women on the ground and afghan people on the ground, and the mission calls to evacuate, and yesterday they lost 13 of their own, and the president made it clear that we will hunt down and go after and kill the terrorists responsible, and everyone should be supportive of that. >> now is not the time for politics. >> correct. >> thank you. thank you, jen, and when the president says that we will hunt you down and make you pay. what does that look like? is he ordering a mission to kill the people responsible or satisfied they are captured and brought to trial? >> i think that he made clear yesterday that he does not want them to live on the earth anymore. >> okay. and as the u.s. is coordinating with the taliban about security for the next couple of days, some of the people running security for the taliban in kabul are terrorists with millions of dollars worth of bounties on their heads, are we going to try to bring those known terrorists to justice before we leave the country? >> peter, the focus right now is to get the remaining americans out of the country, the afghan partners out of the country, and as i said in response to phil's question, this is not a preferred relationship, or a situation that we would have designed if we had started from scratch. that is very clear. but right now, we need to continue to coordinate and that is the focus for the next couple of days. >> the last one, you said that we will have a great deal of leverage over the taliban after we leave, and you think that we will have more leverage with no troops on the ground than we do with thousands of troops on the ground? >> to be clear, one of the steps that the president directed the secretary of state this morning was to engage with the international partners to determine what the path forward looks like, and there are key components here. the taliban wants a functioning airport, and so do we. they want a leveraging community, and there is more to update you on, we will update. >> and the president's commitment to make those responsible for yesterday's attack to pay, is the president committed that after the americans leave afghanistan, he is willing to send in americans in some covert form to complete that mission to kill those who are responsible? >> i won't get into details on here after what "hunting down and going after the terrorists" of killing 13 service members will entail or detail, but that commitment will remain until it is done. >> so the potential does exist for troops to go back to afghanistan. >> again, i won't go back into the detail of what that requires, but his commitment remains until it is done. >> just so it is clear for americans here four-plus days until the august 31st deadline, that all americans who want to leave afghanistan will be able to leave before that date? >> that is what we are focused on and working towards and committed to. >> it is friday and the deadline is tuesday, and what more can you tell us about the talks that the president has directed the secretary to undertake and how close are we going to have diplomatic agreements to the 31st? >> that is not what we are predicting, and we are not predicting a diplomatic presence on the ground in afghanistan. what we are talking about is coordinating with the international partners to find a path forward to continue to evacuate third-country nationals and afghans with visas and others who are not departed because they are not prepared to depart, and that is going to require continued engagement with our international partners and the taliban. >> you are saying there is not a diplomatic presence there in afghanistan? >> we are clear to pull our personnel out of afghanistan by the 31st. i will let the state department speak to any other plans other than that. >> you said that the president has all of the legal authority when it comes to isis-k. >> and so is there any other power that was passed since 9/11? >> the president has all of the authority he needs to attack isis-k. >> and now, there is a special meeting with india and others for a special g-20 meeting. >> well, it is a great question and it would be coordinated through the state department, jennifer, so i direct you to them, and the planned meetings with the partners in the coming days. >> and in the oval office they talked about if the diplomacy fails with iran, he would be willing to look at other option, and can you share what other options might mean? >> well, any president maintains a full range of options, but the first objective is to have a diplomatic path forward and this is where we are putting the energies now. >> i know that there are a lot of questions here about this, and i want to get clarity past august 31st, and for the people in afghanistan and want to get out. does the u.s. right now have a vision of a process that they will use to get people out after august 31st, like and what is the commitment after august 31st? absolute that if you helped the u.s. military and you want to get out, you can get out or a green card holder and you want to get out -- so, is the u.s. guaranteeing that you are going to get out? >> we are not guaranteeing, but we can work toward, and this is what the president directed the secretary of state to continue diplomatic efforts with third-country partners to help those with visas, and any american citizen to leave the country after the u.s. military presence ends. there is a mechanism for that, and that is the objective and the commitment does not change on august 31st. obviously, we have to figure tout operational mechanisms which is the conversation under way. >> i have a question about the green card holders in afghanistan, u.s. green holders, and are they prioritized right now or only u.s. citizens? are green card holders prioritized now? >> you can note from the numbers looking at the last 24 hours, and we have more than 10,000, and a little bit higher than that people out, and just over 300 of them were american citizens, and passport holders i should say, and the rest of the people were afghan and greencard holders and others, so they are still getting out of the country, yes. >> and the administration, and the biden administration is filled with people who have had a long experience with afghanistan, and many of them dating back years if not, you know, decades -- >> including the president. >> including the president, and most of the time, the taliban was the sworn enemy, and it was the enemy against whom we fought, and so is there recognition inside of the administrations of the irony, and the grim irony of having the dependence on and having to rely on them to rely on them to get americans out? >> irony is too light, because they control the swath of land, and in order to get the citizens out and the afghan citizens out, and the green card holders out, we have to work with them. this is not the only place in the world where we work, and we have to work with adversaries or people who have been enemies at times in order to further u.s. national security objectives and that is part of what you have to be flexible to do when you are running the united states or when national security teams are looking to achieve the objectives around the world. >> but it is a little bit -- have you had a sense from the meetings that you are in a kind of resignation or frustration from what you want to call it of the certain situation that they find themselves in? >> okay. i understand the question. okay. having sat in these meetings, there is no time for self-reflection, and we are looking at the incoming and what steps to take to get the people out over the coming days and the remaining days, so i would not say that there is a lot of focus on the self-reflection at this point in time. >> thank you, jen. what is the white house's reaction of the supreme court overturning the eviction moratorium, and do they want congress to act to issue a new moratorium, and what do they do now with the eviction crisis for many renters out there? >> well, first, president biden would support congressional action to support the moratorium, and now there is a outline for how that could continue. now the objective is to keep as many people around the country in their homes as possible. federal legislation is one way to do that. obviously the moratorium we have had in place is one way to do it. and obviously, the place we have had in place around the states is encouraged to do it around the nation, and seven states have done it, and it is the same impact, because it is preventing people from getting kicked out of their homes and the states have the funding thanks to the american rescue fund to get that done, and the other place that is our responsibility to focus on is to work to eliminate any red tape that exists. we made announcements earlier in the week that allows the renters to attest to the economic circumstances to make it easier that is what we have made an impact in some states, but looking for ways to ease the burden and access to the funding. >> you said that biden would support another moratorium, but is he is going to actively urge congress to take out the vote, and pass one? >> he has conveyed that, but it is important to go back to not to beat a dead horse here, but not to miss the forest for the trees here, but it is to prevent people from getting vikted from the homes, and if there were enough votes in congress to pass a eviction moratorium, it would happen, but we don't, so we want to achieve the objective that everyone shares and not everyone, but the extension on this to keep people in their home, and there is a means to do this and seven states have done this, and more states can do this with the funding they need, because it is there. >> and now, jen, we have some refugees landing at dulles airport, and sitting there for hours with no access to food or drink, and so what does the white house think about these conditions? we are working to improve the conditions of the people coming into the country, and the vetting process is so thorough, and the people are vetted before they come, and they go through a background check before they come, and we implement multiple layers of checks and including a confirmation upon landing, and that is to check the manifest, and in a limited number of cases we have vetting processes that may be unresolved and limited, but it may lead to at times a delay in and individuals being held on the plane so that we can have that process seen through, and now, of course, ensuring that people are treated humanely as they are coming to the united states, and they have access to food and water is something that we are committed to and we will continue to improve any of these conditions, but i think that reason why these planes are waiting is also an important part of the context as well. >> and to follow up, you addressed the republican criticism of the president, but what is the message, and the white house's message to democrats who have expressed substantive concerns about the withdrawal from afghanistan and any message to them or withdrawal? >> a specific piece? >> congresswoman susan wild to say that we cannot continue to put service people in danger because of an unwinnable war, but we cannot be in this egregious withdrawal. >> well, it is easy to be throwing stones and be critical from the outside. but in the arena, the decisions from inside are difficult options. all right. these are the options, send thousands of more troops to afghanistan to potentially lose their lives that is an option. some support that. that is their prerogative. you pull out and you don't put anyone at risk and you don't put troops at risk and you don't evacuate more than 105,000 people, and that is another option. the option that he has chosen in coordination and based on the recommendations with his military commanders and advisers on the ground is to implement an evacuation that has saved the lives of more than 105,000 people and certainly at the risk of the lives of the men and women as we saw yesterday -- >> jen, like you have said repeatedly that there were only two choices. what evidence do you have that there weren't other choices that couldn't have been made? i mean -- >> well, what is the other choice that anyone is offering. >> well, for example -- >> go ahead. >> and the ghani government in may, that we will start a massive evacuation, and put out the memo that we will start to evacuate, and have a show of no confidence in the ghani government, and that is one option and ten others that i have not thought of it, and so why only two. >> well, there are other options, but there are consequences to every option. so, take your option, and evacuate and moved in the c-17s and 6,000 troops and that is what you are suggesting and implemented the evacuation in may, you know what would have happened in all likelihood, the threat on u.s. forces would have increased at this time, and isis-k. >> and you would have been operating in a capital that was not overrun by the taliban? >> how do you know that? >> it was not nea