Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Briefs Members of the Media, May 29, 2025

Hello, everybody. How are you? Wow, a packed room today. Last night, the Trump administration faced another example of judicial overreach. Using his full and proper legal authority, President Trump imposed universal tariffs and reciprocal tariffs on Liberation Day to address the extraordinary threats to our national security and economy that posed by large and persistent annual US Goods trade deficits. The United States has run a trade deficit of goods every year since 1975. In 2024, our trade deficit in goods exceeded $1 trillion. Everybody agrees this is unacceptable. President Trump is delivering on his promise to fix this problem, and he has taken a long overdue and much needed bold stance for American workers. After decades of our manufacturing base being hollowed out, the President's rationale for imposing these powerful tariffs was legally sound and grounded in common sense. President Trump correctly believes that America cannot function safely long term if we are unable to scale advance domestic manufacturing capacity, have our own secure critical supply chains, and our defense industrial base is dependent on foreign adversaries. Three judges of the U.S. court of International Trade disagreed and brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump to stop him from carrying out the mandate that the American people gave him. These judges failed to acknowledge that the President of the United States has core foreign affairs powers and authority given to him by Congress to protect the United States economy and national security. Congress had created the National Emergency act to provide the congressional framework to strike down improper IPA use. And any questions over whether President Trump improperly imposed these IEPA tariffs were already adjudicated in Congress following Liberation Day. Congress firmly rejected an effort led by Senator Rand Paul and Democrats to terminate the President's reciprocal tariffs. The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process. America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges. President Trump is in the process of rebalancing America's trading agreements with the entire world, bringing tens of billions of dollars in tariff revenues to our country, and finally ending the United States of America from being ripped off. These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage. The administration has already filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal, and an immediate administrative stay to strike down this egregious decision. But ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country. With Congress returning next week, it's critical that Senate Republicans maintain the momentum and quickly pass The One Big Beautiful Bill the One Big Beautiful Bill will truly make America safe and prosperous. The One Big Beautiful Bill includes the largest border security investment ever. That's why the law enforcement groups are lining up to encourage its swift passage. The National Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union in the country, just endorsed key provisions of the bill. The FOP president announced their strong support, saying the One Big Beautiful Bill act is more than legislation. It is a promise kept to the public safety officers across the country in a bold step toward an economy that respects, rewards and uplifts the people who keep it safe. And the National Border Patrol Council, which represents nearly 20,000 Border Patrol agents, hailed the legislation as well. The group's president said, this legislation provides a once in a generation investment in the border security of our great country and will make America safer. The One Big Beautiful Bill will guarantee we can permanently have the safest, strongest and most secure immigration system in American history. I also want to take the opportunity to debunk some false claims that have been circulating in the press about this bill. The blatantly wrong claim that the One Big Beautiful Bill increases the deficit is based on the Congressional Budget Office and other scorekeepers who use shoddy assumptions and have historically been terrible at forecasting across Democrat and Republican administrations alike. For example, just before Congress enacted the original Trump tax cuts at the end of 2017, the same CBO projected that growth would average a mere 1.9% over the next 10 years. However, by 2019, actual growth had surged to 3.4% once the Trump tax cuts went into effect, exceeding the CBO forecast by nearly two full percentage points. The CBO's latest forecast makes the same anemic growth assumptions as they did in 2017. Missing the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill. The CBO assumes long term GDP growth of an anemic 1.8%, and that is absurd. The American economy is going to boom like never before after the One Big Beautiful bill is passed. The largest middle class tax cut in history, massive deregulation and the most aggressive domestic energy exploration ever will fuel small businesses, further boost private investment, increase workers wages and supercharge economic growth. The Council of Economic Advisors has factored in the effects of all these pro growth policies and estimated in their own analysis that growth will average 3% in the long run after the One Big Beautiful bill is passed, which is nearly double the ridiculous CBO projection. This higher growth would result in $4.1 trillion in additional revenue over the next 10 years between the common sense spending reforms contained in the one big beautiful bill and the robust economic growth that will be generated as a result of it, there will be no increase to the deficit. The same analysis from the CEA shows just how this historic package will unleash prosperity and ignite a blue collar boom across America. But if the radical Democrats get their way and the one big beautiful bill does not pass, Americans will face a whopping $4 trillion tax hike. This is unacceptable to President Trump. President Trump will not allow Democrats to massively raise Americans taxes. Senate Republicans must get this bill passed. Failure is not an option. The American people are counting on us, on Republicans to deliver. In other news, despite all the doom casting from the media, Americans are growing more and more optimistic about the economy under this. Consumer confidence surged in May with the biggest monthly jump in four years, smashing expectations. According to the release from the Consumer Confidence Index, the increase in confidence was broad based across all age groups, income groups and political affiliations. Our country is clearly heading in the right direction under President Trump's bold leadership. For the first time in history of Rasmussen polling, a majority of Americans believe the country is on the right track. It's unsurprising because the President is fulfilling the promises he made to the American people. Here in our new media seat today, we have the editor in chief of the Federalist, Molly Hemingway. The Federalist is led by Molly and Shaun Davis, and provides fearless journalism and coverage of politics and culture to millions of readers all over the world. Thank you for being here, Molly, and why don't you please kick us off. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. In the first Trump administration, there was an effort to stymie the agenda of Trump through the Russia collusion hoax perpetuated by many people in the media, including some people seated here or the media outlets they represent, and other Democrats as well. The second Trump administration, to reference what you said at the beginning, seems to be subject to an effort to stymie the agenda using rogue lower court judges. You mentioned that the Supreme Court court could and should do something to rein in these lower court judges. Also Congress could do something about it, but they don't seem terribly interested in it. It also seems there's not much of an actual coordinated effort from this White House to take and tackle this effort from judges, Democrats and other people using these judges to stymie the agenda. Is there an actual effort by this White House to tackle this issue in a comprehensive way, and if so, what is it? Ms. There is an effort by this administration to tackle these rogue judges and the injunctions and the blockades that we have faced in our broken judicial system in every case. I mean, we have seen time and time again these lower district court judges ruling against this administration and the president's basic executive authority and powers. And this administration is fighting every single one of those battles in court, including already the block that came down from the Tariff Court, the IPA Court, last night. And as on my way out here to the briefing room, I understand that there was another district court judge right here in Washington, D.C. who ruled against the president's tariff power. And I will get to the heart of your question, and I'm glad that we are addressing this in the room today, because nationwide injunctions ordered against the first Trump administration. Trump 1.0 account for more than half of the injunctions issued in this country since 1963. And President Trump had more injunctions in one full month of office in February than Joe Biden had in three years. And let me roll through some of these radical injunctions to paint the picture for the American people at home. This is not. These are not just talking points. These are real judges in the court of law who are trying to block the president's power and the policies that he was elected to enact. For example, a court ordered the Trump administration to return already deported terrorist aliens back to the United States. A court has ruled the Trump administration can't even temporarily pause our refugee programs. Courts prohibited the Trump administration from eliminating federal funding for child transgender surgery and mutilation, a practice that the American people overwhelmingly reject. A court also held that the Trump administration could not ban people experiencing gender dysphoria or mental health issues from serving in the military. Ridiculous. Courts prohibited the removal of transgender women from women's prisons, despite potential physical harm to real women in those prisons, biological women. A Northern District of California judge issued an absurd ruling that the president cannot fire people within the executive branch without Congress passing a bill, even though Congress has expressly authorized the president through the Office of Personnel Management, to authorize reductions in force across agencies. A court also ordered the Trump administration to rehire thousands of already fired employees. In several cases, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from defunding the Department of Education, another signature campaign promise that this president has the power to implement. Courts ordered the Trump administration could not eliminate funding for illegal DEI programs, hence the word illegal. These are illegal programs to begin with. And now the courts are trying to say this president can't roll them back. And a district court judge prohibited the president from issuing any categorical funding freezes. And then another court ordered on top of that, the administration makes $2 billion of payments and in 36 hours. These are just a few of the ridiculous orders that we have seen from lower district court judges every day, and we hope that the Supreme Court will weigh in and rein them in. White House advisor Stephen Miller says it's judicial tyranny. Some people are calling it a judicial coup. You're saying you're responding to each and every one of these actions, efforts by these judges to delay or thwart the implementation of the agenda. But is there going to be anything more than that, or is it just going to let this operation continue even though it could delay everything for years until the presidency is over? Ms. The administration is operating under the directive given from the president that we need to comply with the court's orders. He's made that very clear. But we're going to fight them in court and we're going to win on the merits of these cases because we know we are acting within the president's legal and executive authorities. And thanks for being here, Gabe. Thank you, Caroline. QUESTION on terrorists. But first, actually, some foreign policy news, some breaking news. Some local Israeli media is reporting that Prime Minister Netanyahu told hostage families that he's accepted a 60 day truce offer. So can you confirm have Israel and Hamas agreed to a truce? Ms. I can confirm that special envoy Witkoff and the president submitted a cease fire proposal to Hamas that Israel backed and supported. Israel signed off on this proposal before it was sent to Hamas. I can also confirm that those discussions are continuing and we hope that a cease fire in Gaza will take place so we can return all of the hostages home. And that's been a priority from this administration from the beginning. I won't comment further as we are in the midst of this right now. So to be clear, you don't know if Hamas has accepted it yet? Ms. Not to my knowledge, but certainly if that becomes the case and this cease fire goes into effect, you'll hear it directly from myself, the president or special envoy Wykoff. And on tariffs, Kevin Hassett. Earlier this morning, he brushed off a legal ruling and called it a hiccup and he said that trade deal negotiations would continue. Why would other countries continue these trade deal negotiations given the rule? Ms. Because other countries around the world have faith in the negotiator in chief, President Donald J. Trump, and they also probably see how ridiculous this ruling is and they understand that the administration is going to win and we intend to win. We already filed an emergency appeal. We expect to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court these other countries should also know, and they do know, that the president reserves other tariff authorities, Section 232, for example, to ensure that America's interests are being restored around the world. But I can confirm that our ambassador for trade, Jamison Greer, already heard from countries around the world this morning who said they intend to continue with these negotiations. Peter. Thank you, Caroline. So many of the president's plans right now are being blocked by courts. If the courts are going to be the ones who are shaping policy, does the president wish he would have just become a judge instead? Mr. I think the president would take this job over being a judge, and certainly the president is acting within his authority. He wishes judges would do the same. So the courts are basically telling you guys they think that the White House's policies, the president's policies are in some way against the law. So why can't President Trump ask the the Republicans that control the House and the Republicans that control the Senate just to make a new law? Ms. Well, these laws have already been granted to the president by the Constitution and by laws that have been previously passed. I'll give you another example. For instance, we've been blocked in court for the revocation of visas from individuals who have the privilege of studying in the United States of America. Secretary of State Rubio has simply used his authority to revoke those visas, to revoke that privilege, and we've seen the courts try to block that. So if these judges want to be the secretary of state or they want to be the president, they can run for office themselves. It should be the other way around. But all of the actions the president has taken rely on legal authorities that have already been granted to him by our nation's existing laws. And on a different topic, there are some folks in President Biden's inner circle who are now in talks with Republicans in Congress to to give interviews about how they may have handled President Biden's decline. Is the president satisfied with aides only sitting for these transcribed interviews, or would he also like to see some kind of testimony from the former first lady, Dr. Biden? I think, frankly, the former first lady should certainly speak up about what she saw in regards to her husband and when she saw it and what she knew, because I think anybody looking again at the videos and photo evidence of Joe Biden with your own eyes and a little bit of common sense can see this was a clear cover up. And Jill Biden was certainly complicit in that cover up. There's documentation, video evidence of her clearly shielding her husband away from the cameras. They were just on the View last week. She was saying everything is fine. She's still lying to the American people. She still thinks the American public are so stupid that they're going to believe her lies. And frankly, it's insulting and she needs to answer for it. Thank you, Caroline. President Trump was asked what he thought about Elon Musk's claim that the big, beautiful bill increases the budget deficit and undermines the work of Doge, and the president didn't actually comment on those remarks. He just talked about the need to support the bill. So what does the president think about what Elon Musk said? Ms. Well, the President is very proud of the one big, beautiful bill, and he wants to see it pass. He wants the Senate to get to work on it and send it to his desk as quickly as possible. Of course, as you know, Elon Musk announced last night his departure as an official special government employee from the Trump administration. We thank him for his service. We thank him for getting Doge off of the ground, and the efforts to cut waste, fraud and abuse will continue. So he doesn't have any comment about Musk saying it adds to the deficit and it undermines all his work? The president commented on this. I commented on it. I told you that this bill saves $1.6 trillion according to the Council of Economic Advisers and the analyses that the president believes in. So he gave a comment. I gave a comment. Just because you don't like that comment doesn't mean it's not a comment, Rachel. Thanks, Caroline. Back on trade, I know you said the White House is going to fight this ruling in court. Is the administration actively reviewing other avenues, other options to carry out the president's trade policy? Ms. The president's trade policy will continue. We will comply with the court orders. But yes, the president has other legal authorities where he can implement tariffs. However, it does not dispute the fact that the president was right to declare a national emergency when it came to fentanyl and when also when it came to our crippling deficits and the lack of critical supply chains here at home. That is the reasoning for the president's tariffs. And the court didn't dispute those facts, by the way, and there have been other courts that have reaffirmed the president's position. In fact, a ruling in federal court earlier this month shows that the administration is in the right, said we will win. On appeal, a federal district judge in Florida ruled that ipa in fact, does grant the president the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs and 20 years ago. I will add, though they are not a court. The New York Times editorial board responded to the January 20, 2005 trade deficit of 58.3 billion by writing an editorial entitled Dangerous Deficits. And since then, our trade deficit has more than doubled. The US trade deficit in January totaled a whopping 131.4 billion. So people on both sides of the aisle, pundits, lawyers, legal scholars, politicians have all agreed that it is a national emergency, our trade deficits and our lack of critical supply chains here at home. It's just President Trump was the first president to actually act on it, to restore that wealth and that prosperity to the United States of America, and it's very unfortunate that the courts are now blocking his attempts to do that. Has the administration then reached the point where you are actually asking your economic advisors to start reviewing other avenues to implement the president's trade policy, or do you want to just see this legal process take place for now? Ms. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We are doing both. Josh, the Fed says that the president met with the Fed chair earlier today. I'm wondering if you can give us any readout of that meeting. The Fed also says that they discussed the economy. I imagine the president might have shared views on rates as well. What can you share with that? Ms. I can share with you that we saw the president and I both saw the statement that the Fed put out after the meeting. That statement is correct. However, the president did say that he believes the Fed chair is making a mistake by not lowering interest rates, which is putting us at an economic disadvantage to China and other countries. And the president's been very vocal about that, both publicly and now I can reveal privately as well. Did he speak at all about his plans for that position, about whether he would seek to move Jay Powell out of that position or keep him in until his term ends? No. Kristen, I can ask very quickly on the tariff question. You mentioned section 232 earlier. Are you suggesting that you might sort of speed up some of the existing 232 investigations, or are you talking potentially using 232 as a replacement power if this ruling doesn't go your way? Of course you hope it does. I'm not suggesting. I'm just simply stating the fact that the president has other legal authorities he can use to implement tariffs and the administration is willing to use those. As you know, we already have applied Section 232 tariffs on specific industries. Yes, thank you. President Trump said that he needed one and a half to two weeks to determine whether or not he believed Vladimir Putin wanted peace. He has been in office now for four months. What does he believe is going to happen in the next one and a half to two weeks that would change his opinion? Ms. Well, it is my understanding and it is our hope that Russia and Ukraine will engage in direct talks and negotiations next week in Istanbul. And we believe that meeting is going to take place. And that is a meeting the president encouraged and urged for these two sides to come together and negotiate directly. And the president has been clear from the very beginning of this conflict that he wants to see this conflict solved on the negotiating table, not on the battlefield. And he's told that to both leaders again, both publicly and privately. So hopefully next week it will move the ball forward in this. Is the United States going to participate in those conversations? We will let you know if the president plans to send a representative. I'm not tracking that at this time. Kelly, in the back. Thanks, Caroline. Sure. I wanted to just clarify once and for all the Qatari jet, the sail or the gift? Ms. Because the Qatari government is asking the US to clarify that the jets pending transfer of was initiated by the Trump administration. So is this something that the White House is going to do? Miss the amount of questions we've received and we've been incredibly clear and I have answered this, the president has answered this, the Department of Defense has answered this. This is a government to government gift transfer from the Qataris to the Department of Defense to the United States Air Force. It is now in their hands. And for further details on where that stands, I would defer you to the Department of Defense and the United States Air Force. I have nothing more for you on that, Deanna. Thanks, Caroline. Two questions, one on big beautiful bill, one on immigration. Sure. Yesterday, Trump said, we will be negotiating that bill and I'm not happy about certain aspects of it, but I'm thrilled by other aspects of it. Wondering if you could share any specifics on that and on immigration. Do you know how many illegal migrants have taken Trump's voucher program so far and have deported themselves? I believe it's and the thousands of those who have chosen the way the easier route of self deportation. And we certainly encourage all illegal aliens who are present within our homeland to take that option. It's a much more pleasant option than being deported and we will deport you if you're here illegally. That's our intention. As for the first question the president was speaking about is how this is a great bill. However, it has come as a Result of a hard negotiation. It's, it's difficult to get things done on Capitol Hill, but thanks to President Trump, this bill is moving in the right direction. And thanks to House Republicans and the leadership over there as well, who did a great job mediating both sides of the caucus to move this bill to the Senate. And now the president again has told his friends in the Senate side and is already engaged in those conversations to get that bill back to his desk as soon as possible. Sure. Thank you. Has this administration been briefed about this? The incident that happened in Gaza on Tuesday during the rollout of the Gaza Humanitarian foundation, distribution of aid to Palestinians there, and should there be a ceasefire, will this administration continue to rely on this foundation for the distribution of aid to civilians? Are you referring, what incident are you referring to? On Tuesday when the aid was rolled out to Gaza for the first time in many months and meals and food was given to hungry people thanks to President Trump? Yes, we were briefed on that plan. The president was the reason that that aid went into Gaza and he got the Israelis to support that plan. And I would add that the previous administration rejected such a plan to ensure that these starving and devastated people in the Gaza Strip were given humanitarian aid and assistance. And it was the previous administration that, that tried to build this pier, if you all remember it. It was brought to my attention this morning, and I thought, that's a good point. Why don't I bring that up? Because there's been so much criticism. In fact, it was on the front page of a newspaper this morning about the criticism for this president having a humanitarian heart and giving people badly needed food and supplies. Nobody wanted to talk about how the previous administration failed in that endeavor. They built this PIER that cost $230 million. It lasted about 20 days, and more than 60 U.S. service members were injured or, I'm sorry, service members were injured as a part of this floating aid pier that did nothing for the people of Gaza. The president is opening up his humanitarian heart to get aid into the region while his team simultaneously negotiates a ceasefire and the return of all hostages. We are moving the ball forward in a positive direction for all people. The president wants to see peace for all people. Jasmine, thanks so much, Caroline. A notice investigation found that the Hallmark Maha Can Commission report that was released last week cites studies that appear to not exist. We know that because, in part, we reached out to some of the listed authors who said that they didn't write the studies cited. So I want to ask, does the White House have confidence that the information coming from HHS can be trusted. Yes, we have complete confidence in Secretary Kennedy and his team at hhs. I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed and the report will be updated. But, but it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government and is backed on good science that has never been recognized by the federal government. And a quick follow up, can you talk about what tools or research goes into production of these kinds of reports? For instance, is it AI that's used to put together these reports? Now, I can't speak to that. I would defer you to the Department of Health and Human Services. What I know is just what I told you, Lindsey. Thank you, Caroline. Many small businesses that we've talked to since the tariffs have been in place have said what would really help them is a long term plan so that they can catch up. In light of what's happened now, this trade war with the courts, how will that impact this 90 day window? Will you guys be adjusting that and how can you help relieve some of these small businesses? Well, I would say nobody understands the needs of business owners and nobody has the backs of our small business community more than President Donald J. Trump. He believes, I've heard him talk about this with small business owners himself, that small businesses are truly the backbone of our American economy and that's why the president is supporting the one big beautiful bill. So for those you spoke to who are asking for a long term plan, big tax cuts are coming their way. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime for their workers, no more money in their pockets. Their bottom lines will be larger, they can pay their people more. Wages are going to go up, inflation will continue to come down. We've already seen energy prices plummeting as a result of this president's economic and energy agenda that he has been implementing across the federal government, reducing burdensome regulation. All of that is good news for small business owners across the country. That's why they strongly support the president and that's the Trump economic plan that is underway. And again, you're emphasizing, I believe, the need to pass the one big beautiful bill and the president wants to see that happen. Ms. Sure. Will you still work within that 90 day window for these trade negotiations? Ms. Again, as far as we're concerned, our trade agenda is moving forward and we've already heard from countries around the world today who will continue to negotiate in good faith with the United states so we can cut good trade deals on behalf of the American people, and we fully expect to win this case in court. On Golden Dome, the president put out this number of $61 billion. How did he arrive at that? Is that the number it will cost to protect Canada, and is it negotiable or where did it come from? Ms. I can certainly ask the president and I can check in with our research team and we'll get you the facts on that number. But the Golden Dome is certainly a significant investment in our nation's national security and homeland security to protect Americans, all of you in this room, from future threats. Any readout on have the Canadians been talking in good faith about paying to be in it? I know that expressed some interest. Well, the president has certainly expressed to the Canadians how we are essentially subsidizing their national defense. He brought it up in his meeting with their new leader here. And as you know, we'll be traveling to Canada next month for the G7, so I expect that topic of discussion to come up on that trip as well. Sure. Thanks, Caroline. There was a Mayday USA rally in Seattle that happened over the weekend that devolved into some protests and riots. The Seattle mayor, Harold, said that it was a far right rally held here to provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city's values, which he defined as LGBT values. I know the FBI is looking into this, but has the president reached out to the mayor at all, asked him to apologize for this, and is this something that the administration would consider an example of anti Christian bias? Ms. I'm not aware of that case. I know the FBI is looking into it, but I'm not aware of any phone calls the president may or may not have made to the mayor of that city. And then on doge, we know that Elon Musk is leaving. Do you have an updated leadership structure for who is leading the group? Is respot involved and what is its new mission now, if any? Ms. Well, the entire Cabinet is involved and I spoke to the president about it this morning. And the entire Cabinet understands the need to cut government waste, fraud and abuse, and each Cabinet secretary at their respective agencies is committed to that. That's why they were working hand in hand with Elon Musk, and they'll continue to work with the respective DOGE employees who have onboarded as political appointees at all of these agencies. So surely the mission of DOGE will continue. And many DOGE employees are now political appointees and employees of our government. And to the best of my knowledge all of them intend to stay and continue this important work. Is there a Doge leader taking the place of Mr. Musk? Ms. Well, again, the Doge leaders are each and every member of the President's cabinet and the President himself, who is wholeheartedly committed to cutting waste, fraud and abuse from our government. Michael thank you, Caroline. Now there's conflicting reports out of the Middle east. Right now. Saudi television network Al Arabia is saying that Israel and Hamas have agreed to a 60 day ceasefire. Sources with Hamas are saying that has not been agreed to. If and when that does happen, will we expect to hear something from President Trump announcing that? Ms. As I said earlier, yes, indeed. If there is an announcement to be made, it will come from the White House, the President, myself or special Envoy Witkoff. Caroline, one big beautiful bill. The President says he's not happy with all aspects of it. What changes would he like to see be made and can this bill be both big and miss it is a one big beautiful bill as the name rings true. And the President, as I said, is currently working with his friends in the Senate who have some recommendations for the bill. Those negotiations and discussions are continuing, but the President's ultimate priority is to get this bill back to his desk for signature. And the President's priorities in this bill are non negotiable in terms of the tax priorities he wants to see and the large tax cuts in the border investments that are currently in this bill. He is not going to allow them to go away for the American people. Sure, go ahead. Yes, I wanted to ask you about has the President spoken to any of these foreign leaders about these agreements that have been reached, specifically the case of the United Kingdom that already has an agreement in place after this decision of the court in New York? Ms. Has the president talked to foreign leaders about what about it the court decision in New York? Ms. Which court decision in New York? Ms. Trade, the trade court. Oh, the trade court decision. He did speak to the leader of Japan this morning and he said that was a very good call and a good discussion. And as I said, the President's Cabinet Secretary Lutnick, Secretary Besant and Ambassador Jamison Greer have all been in touch with their counterparts in countries around the world to let them know the United States will still be at the negotiating table and and we still expect countries around the world to treat us fairly. Again. I will just close by saying that how ridiculous it is that we have been ripped off, our middle class has been hollowed out, our manufacturing base has left and gone overseas, jobs have been offshored and now no court did anything about that. No court did anything about hundreds of thousands of people being put out of work, about thousands of factories being closed down, about our deficits going to dangerous levels, as the New York Times has said. But now a court is trying to stop a president from trying to correct those wrongs of the past, and this administration will continue to do that. It's a promise the president made to the American people, and it's a promise they elected him on. We will win this battle in court, and the president will implement his America first trade policies. Thank you, everyone. Steel situation tomorrow. Ms. I can tell you the president greatly looks forward to going to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he will discuss, discuss this historic deal and discuss American jobs and American steel. And we hope to see you all there. Thanks, guys.