Department Press Briefing – April 22, 2025 – United States Department of State

He has issued the following statement on the plan, which you can get at State Department – D-E-P-T or – how – is it dot gov?

STAFF:  State.gov. 

MS BRUCE:  State.gov is where you can get this statement and links to other information on what we’re about to discuss:

We are facing tremendous challenges across the globe.  To deliver on President Trump’s America First foreign policy, we must make the State Department great again.  

In its current form, the department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition.  Over the past 15 years, the department’s footprint has had unprecedented growth and costs have soared.  But far from seeing a return to investment, taxpayers have seen less effective and less efficient diplomacy.  The sprawling bureaucracy created a system more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America’s core national interests.

That is why today Secretary Rubio is announcing a comprehensive reorganization plan that will bring the department into the 21st century.  This approach will empower the department from the ground up, from the bureaus to the embassies.  Region-specific functions will be consolidated to increase functionality, redundant offices will be removed, and non-statutory programs that are misaligned with America’s core national interests will cease to exist.  

Under President Trump’s leadership, we have a commander in chief committed to putting America and Americans first.  As his Secretary of State, Secretary Rubio announces that he is in fact confident a reformed State Department will meet the moment and help make our country great once again.

So the bottom line here is that these sweeping changes will empower our talented diplomats to put America and Americans first.  It is also – I will remind for those of you who are in the bullpen and those watching at home – as I’ve mentioned before, there’s a number of journalists and organizations that are a member of our bullpen.  They’re people who cover the State Department and work here in the building.  And we had a discussion earlier today with some more background on this that also for State Department personnel – everyone in the building – will be receiving, of course, this statement, and there is an opinion piece that is available from the Secretary at the new State Department Substack link, and that is State – D-E-P-T.Substack.com.  Is that it?  Go there and it will ask if you want to subscribe.  You don’t have to.  You can just click on the title and you’ll get additional commentary from the Secretary in this regard.  

Also, for everyone in this building, there is additional information.  There is a fact sheet.  There are frequently asked questions.  There’s an additional statement from the Deputy Secretary Landau, so you will be able to see that as well.  And as a reminder again, because I know there’s been a lot of fake news out there, this is a reorganization plan.  It is not something where people are being fired today.  They’re not – you’re not – no one’s going to be walking out of the building.  It’s not that kind of a dynamic.  It is a roadmap; it’s a plan.  It is something that we’ve – there’s been a congressional notice that has been sent.  And so the steps and the procedures that happen through the government are also taking place at this point as well.

And at this stage, I will open it up for questions on this issue.  Yes.  Shaun.  

QUESTION:  Sure.  Thanks.  If you don’t mind, just – obviously there’ll be lots of questions on this, but just to make sure we get to it.   

MS BRUCE:  Of course. 

 QUESTION:  The Russians said that – are saying that Special Envoy Witkoff is coming back.  

MS BRUCE:  All right.  So we’re doing – that’s a different issue.  

QUESTION:  All right.  

MS BRUCE:  Let’s stick with this.  If we – I – it’s an interesting – if none of you have any questions about this.  

QUESTION:  No, no, we certainly have questions about it.

MS BRUCE:  Yeah, so I mean —   

QUESTION:  We’ll get to that later.

MS BRUCE:  I mean questions about this.  

QUESTION:  Okay. 

MS BRUCE:  And then of course I know – Lord knows – there is many other things that are happening as well.  

QUESTION:  Again, sure. 

MS BRUCE:  All right.  Yes, go ahead.  

QUESTION:  Hi, just on the hiring freeze and the way that this affects the folding in of USAID to the State Department. 

MS BRUCE:  Sure. 

QUESTION:  How – given the fact that these people are not considered State Department employees, what opportunities, if any, are going to be given to them to able to reapply or not for their position? 

MS BRUCE:  Sure.  Sure.  First of all, the USAID fold-in that in a way is kind of the genesis of this, right?  We knew that was going to happen, USAID was going to become a part of the State Department.  And in this framework, what you’ll see – and it makes, I think, perfect sense and people seeing this will see that it makes sense – is that instead of this monolithic entity that was its own object in Washington, D.C., making decisions about aid and where the money would go, the usual experience – and I’ve experienced this with the Secretary’s travels and his conversations with the leaders and also our own embassy and consulate staffs – is that you would have donations or funding for a project that the country itself was not interested in or did not want and had other needs, that the embassy staff or the ambassador was never consulted, that the opinions of the people who are working in the country were not consulted.  

So they would see money going into a nation, as an example, put in to fund something that was even, in some cases, detrimental to the nation that we were working with or opposed by an ambassador, and yet there was no input and no action.  In this particular kind of re-org, it’s about consolidating things, right, weaving certain offices into other bureaus, making situations smaller, reorganizing it literally.  And in that case, you will see the bureaus which used to have a lot of power but had really kind of lost that in a certain way through the giant bureaucracy that became evident through the ‘70s and ‘80s and ‘90s, and that you would have a dynamic now where the intention is – and described in this plan – to have each regional bureau have the element of the USAID that is relevant to that bureau so that they would be working together.  

And it would be a coalition, if you will, of ideas and minds and efforts to then also bring in and have the embassies, the ambassadors, and the governments who we’re working with having a say in making sure that the money that’s donated is relevant to that nation, is relevant to the region.  And that’s what we’ll be – that’s where USAID essentially is going, is into positions where, as I’ve mentioned to you, don’t – as we were doing our review of USAID – is don’t mistake a change for being something – for indicating something is gone or missing, that it was never about us abandoning our commitment to funding to any kind of life-saving efforts or our work with other nations in assisting them, but it was going to look different, and now it will.  

But it will not just look different, but it’s actually going to be within a functional framework to make sure that any aid that goes out is aid that the – that we work with the nation on, that we work with the embassies on, and people on the ground with an interest who are stakeholders, will have a say in that.  I think that that’s a – certainly a much more functional way to move foreign aid through.  

QUESTION:  But on the employees themselves — 

MS BRUCE:  Oh, sure.  

QUESTION:  — that are already sort of in limbo in terms of how their jobs are going to change —

MS BRUCE:  Sure.  Sure.  

QUESTION:  — when the department was going to be taking over USAID.  Are those employees going to have the opportunities to apply for other positions?  How many people — 

MS BRUCE:  Well, some will.  Some will.  So in – again, this is a proposal.  This obviously could change.  But as you have offices that are cut or even some bureaus that were set up for a specific situation that end up being cut entirely, that you will have people who then, Foreign Service officers, career workers, et cetera being able to apply for something else.  So these are a – it’s a dynamic where you’ve got a certain number of open seats that exist and then people who, of course, will then be out of the seat where they were if, in fact, their office is cut or even folded into another bureau.  

So these are – again, this is, again, a road map and it’s a dynamic, whereas we’ve said in the past certain dynamics where people – and this is new for me as somebody who’s never worked for government – very much, in a way, like the military where you can be working for the State Department, working in a specific, let’s say, embassy overseas and then that job ends, and then you come home and you get slotted into a new job.  That – I think for the American people, maybe for large corporations, that makes sense.  But that’s how it works here when, of course, that’s possible.  So that is possible, and we will clearly watch that as it plays out.  

Yes, sir.  

QUESTION:  Thank you very much, Tammy.  You said things will – you said things will look different, and thank you for that response.  

MS BRUCE:  Sure.  

QUESTION:  But I think a lot of people around the world will be wondering what – especially perhaps in the Middle East, Africa – what it will actually mean for them on the ground, what – how will these changes take effect? Will we see offices over there that are being closed, the consulates and so on?  Can you talk a little bit about what people around the world can actually expect? 

MS BRUCE:  Well, I can’t speak to – it’s a very separate issue, right?  This is an organizational roadmap for this department here, right, in Washington, D.C.  The arguments about what will occur in other countries when you’re talking about embassies and consulates, that’s not addressed here.  It’s not a factor that this – this reorg doesn’t affect them except, as I’ve mentioned, is more involvement, right, more direct – direct person-to-person framework, as opposed to bureaucracy-to-bureaucracy.  

No more calling up USAID and going through 17 messages and trying to get an answer back about what’s happening with a certain grant or what’s happening with a certain plan, that this is really in a way that I think I’ve heard many people here note, including the Secretary and the deputy secretary, of returning the State Department to its traditional base, to the nature of human diplomacy, of getting things done, and my goodness, especially in the 21st century that moves so rapidly, faster than any other time in history.

And this is what the State Department used to be able to do.  It has grown, as the Secretary’s statements indicated, quite bloated, unable to move, stuck in really just a – just a bloated inability bureaucratically to make decisions or to get things done.  And if decisions are made, the levels that have to be gone through extend the amount of time to where you can get a decision made.

So I would say for embassies and consulates and the world itself, as they’re already seeing when it comes to the way that President Trump operates, the way that Secretary Rubio operates, it’s about faster results with, I think, a more nimble effort.

All right.  Yes, Humeyra.

QUESTION:  Thank you, Tammy.  So in the reorg we see that the under secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, as known as J inside the State Department, seems to have been eliminated, and some of the bureaus under that is being put under – brought under different under secretaries.  But for example, Office of Global Criminal Justice, which works on monitoring atrocities overseas, which cooperates with different governments on war crimes accountability, seems to be completely eliminated.

So I’m wondering – this under secretariat was a place where U.S. basically did democracy and rights promotion globally.  Does the new State Department under President Trump no longer sees that as a mission?  Is that no longer a priority?

MS BRUCE:  Sure.

QUESTION:  Yeah, I have a follow-up.

MS BRUCE:  I mean, it’s a legitimate question.  Again, we have – we have grown used to seeing something and then that would indicate that’s where that lives, and if that’s gone, the effort is gone.  Many times during the USAID argument I’ve made that argument.  Just because the USAID building was going to be something else doesn’t mean – or that the – certain aid was cut that was not long with our – aligned with our vision or President Trump’s vision doesn’t mean that our commitment to foreign aid ended.

So you’re right; there are going to be certain offices and certain bureaus that are going to be gone or folded into other bureaus.  I would say this is one of the most important aspects of this.  For everyone in the building and everyone watching at home, because you might have had a specific bureau that dealt with a discrete issue doesn’t mean because it’s now folded into another larger bureau doesn’t mean that it’s gone or we don’t care.  

It means that, in fact, certain issues deserve to be considered part – not like some specialized, separate, segregated interest.  Why shouldn’t that interest be in every bureau, right?  If you’ve got bureaus that – and for people watching at home, as I mentioned I think in my very first briefing, that the State Department isn’t just a bunch of people at a desk looking at the internet and people figuring out what it is they want to say to a world leader.  

There’s bureaus filled with people who care about the country, the State Department, and are experts, researchers, individuals who are committed to a certain region who understand it, who have also, though, the relationships with people in the countries in that region.  And then they inform us.  They do the research.  They inform me for this briefing.  I go onto the screen and it’s every bureau in this building that has what we call lines, which are – which is the information about what’s happening on an issue.  They tell me what those things are, what – why it matters, and what – et cetera.  

So I come here and a great deal of what I say to you, if not most, is from the body of knowledge from the people who work in this building who are the Foreign Service officers, the career people, right, the career people, these – the Civil Service officers and workers who are here.  

So that’s how this – it is the government as a whole is people.  It is a collection of people who’ve gathered to further the Founders’ vision, and who with each election gather to further the vision of the person who leads this government.  

So when we think about the nature of USAID or those other bureaus you mentioned, if a bureau is gone, that is – certainly all these issues are important.  It means that we’re looking at certainly blending in with the regional bureaus, taking certain issues away from being specialty issues and making sure that they’re in the frameworks of the bureaus so that they can be weaved in and dealt with as a whole within all the work. 

Yes. 

QUESTION:  Can I follow up on Ukraine?

MS BRUCE:  Of course.  Please.  

QUESTION:  Can we stay with this? 

MS BRUCE:  No?  Next, once we get through this.  

QUESTION:  Okay, I do have a follow-up on this too.  

MS BRUCE:  Okay.  Hold it, but I’ll make sure I give it to you guys.  We’re good. 

QUESTION:  You said earlier that – you talked about some of the programs and you described them as the aims of the programs were not in line with the aims of the country.  Now there are country – like, U.S. has made democracy promotion a priority, but that priority actually did not go down well with some of the countries in the world.  So if a country – for example, a lot of people would give the example of Hungary.  I mean, U.S. has funded some independent media organizations in Hungary.  If those are in contradiction with Hungary’s goals, the U.S. is no longer going to do that kind of thing? 

MS BRUCE:  Oh, no, no, it’s not – without, of course, speculating on what we would do in a particular country, the point is, is that American tax dollars that are sent as aid or to supplement something in another country deserves to be used to reflect the values and the interests of the United States, which of course is democracy and freedom around the world.  I think it’s safe to say that with all of our actions – certainly the Trump Administration – we have made it clear that that is our priority.  

But also, making sure that the ambassadors who are also appointed – who are representing this nation in countries and others who work at the consulates in concert with the nation that we are working with diplomatically – that we have a coalition, if you will, on knowing how that money is being spent and making sure that the stakeholders actually have a say.  I think that’s fair.  Some people would argue that sending money into a country, spending on something that nobody else discussed – like as USAID would do – is unfair and that the people in the country that we’re working with have – should have a say.  

But bottom line is this now moves into something that is more accountable, more specific, easier to describe, easier to ask questions about, and easier, effectively, to – for everyone involved here at the State Department and at the embassies and consulates involved, more accessible and more transparent. 

All right.  Yes. 

QUESTION:  Okay, I just wanted to follow up on Humeyra, on Global Criminal Justice. 

MS BRUCE:  Sure. 

QUESTION:  Because there seems to be a bit of a mixed message, because on the one hand this is clearly being eliminated from the organizational chart, but when we’re pressing you on it you’re saying — 

MS BRUCE:  Well, it may be moved.  I mean, things may – if you don’t see it on the chart, it may be moved. 

QUESTION:  But I – and then the Secretary has retweeted an article which says very specifically that this is an aggressive shakeup; it will close agency offices, including those launched to further human rights, advance democracy overseas, counterextremism, and prevent war crimes.  So it’s just a simple question, really.  Is it – is the investigation and prevention of war crimes overseas still an important — 

MS BRUCE:  Of course. 

QUESTION:  — piece of work and a priority of the State Department?  

MS BRUCE:  Democracy is always important, obviously.  And again, going – and I understand the tendency.  

QUESTION:  I understand, but the question is about war crimes.

MS BRUCE:  I understand the tendency.  War crimes – again, for me being here now, we’re approaching what, a hundred days?  My deciding to do this is based on this nation’s history, and it clearly is committed to the nature of the values of the American people and of this country.  

And just because – and this is why I think it’s difficult to do.  You’ve seen a bureau dedicated just to that.  Just because it has been folded into a different bureau or as an element underneath a different kind of office, and that particular bureau that was maybe specialized, which could be implemented in a better, more nimble, faster way – especially when we’re talking about war crimes and things immediately that are moving on the ground – this is the kind of adjustment and reorganization that makes it better.  And that will always be the argument:  This will be seen.  

But it is – it is of course – those values that you know are American values remain, and while the approach or the bureaus or an office might be called something differently or even eliminated as an office, but is moved through the bureau as a whole, you’ll see that the American approach to the world not only remains the same but will be more obvious, more clear, more dynamic, and more active. 

All right.

QUESTION:  Do you know where will that role move to?  Because it’s very hard to see in the chart, for example, on war crimes or Global Criminal Justice, where that will now exist.  

MS BRUCE:  Well, but again, this is a roadmap.  It is a plan.  This is something that in this process – and there is a process in this government – where there may be certain things that change.  And there’ll be a point where we’re talking about implementation.  So those details – this gives you, I think, a very good idea, transparently for everyone who’s watching this, that this is a change.  It is – the issue is – certainly sometimes we all know that change is difficult, but in this particular case it had to happen because of the bulk, because of the unsustainability of the size of the government.  And that’s why we’re doing it.

All right.  Yes, sir.

QUESTION:  Thank you, Tammy.  Two questions.  I know this came up on different setting, just wanted to make sure —

MS BRUCE:  It’s the same issue?

QUESTION:  Yes.

MS BRUCE:  Okay.

QUESTION:  To put you on the record that this will not impact whatsoever when it comes to the department’s reports on different issues like human rights, which appears to be delayed.

MS BRUCE:  Well, I can’t – I’m not going to speculate on whatsoever impact on how a report is issued, when it’s issued, the content of the report, the nature of how our discussing human rights is done.  I will not – all of that would require speculation here beyond, I think, the reorganization report.

QUESTION:  And my second question.  I know that – I guess the spokesperson’s role will be promoted; congratulations on that – but I want to understand, with the GEC – closure of GEC recently, the Global Engagement Center —

MS BRUCE:  GEC, yes.

QUESTION:  — and also —

MS BRUCE:  Yes.  Now, that’s a very good question, yeah.

QUESTION:  And also eliminating some of the fundings, like grants to Moldova to fight against Russian disinformation —

MS BRUCE:  Well —

QUESTION:  Is the issue of Russian disinformation or Chinese disinformation – is this something that you are concerned about, or are you out of business of combating it?

MS BRUCE:  Well, it’s obvious that everyone’s concerned about interference in elections.  None of us want that.  But, of course, the specifics of how a reorganizational roadmap is not going to – I’m not going to be able to answer the question about how that would be affected, of course.  But – and your other question was —

QUESTION:  Russian – Chinese and Russian disinformation and combating —

MS BRUCE:  No, there was a different one.  I just —

QUESTION:  Your office will be promoted.  I see the —

MS BRUCE:  Well, it’s – it’s – and this is, I think again, a bit in the weeds for the people at home.  I mean, there is an organizational chart.  My office is now answerable to the Secretary, which of course all of you probably already presumed that.  That’s true, but now technically it sits within that umbrella.  So nothing has really changed in that regard except it’s a little bit more specific and obvious when it comes to the nature of my work.

QUESTION:  Can you please come back to me later on Ukraine?

MS BRUCE:  Well, I – forgive me.  I am going to move on.  I was also going to ask – answer your first question, which —

QUESTION:  GEC.

MS BRUCE:  The GEC.  Thank you.  He remembered.  In fact, that’s a good question, because things beyond this roadmap will also happen.  That bureau has been eliminated.  Things will change in the State Department separate from this roadmap.  That bureau, which had been ordered to be removed last fall – what they did is they changed its name and moved people around.  And so that, of course – by eliminating that bureau, $50 million a year – perfect example – that worked to censor the American public.  That is not, certainly, the vision of the Trump Administration or the American people who put him in office.  So yes, that bureau is gone.  It is really gone this time, and the American people are better off for it.

QUESTION:  Can I just ask one quick question?

MS BRUCE:  Yes, of course you can.

QUESTION:  It’s on this process.

MS BRUCE:  Yes.

QUESTION:  There is an internal State Department memo that was put out about this that said that the under secretaries are going to be submitting a path to reduce domestic staff by 15 percent.  Can you just help us understand how the leadership in charge of this reorg came up with the 15 percent number and if there’s any wiggle room there, or if that’s set in stone?

MS BRUCE:  Well, you said this is an internal document.  I’m not going to speak on something that you may or may – I’m not going to presume you didn’t see something, so forgive me.  But I’m not going to speak on the specifics of something like that, but the under secretaries do have a role here.  This is, again, not from on high things being swept away with one of those large yard brooms.  This is a very specific dynamic brought to the under secretaries, who have daily operational experience.

I see you.  Keep your hand down, please.  I’m sorry, it’s a little distracting.

These are under secretaries who are working daily with the people in this building, who work in this building, who know what’s being produced, who know what has to happen, and they are best suited to make a determination when it comes to this roadmap about how to apply the nature of what we want to accomplish.  So the under secretaries are directly involved and they will – I think they’ll have about 30 days to make their own plan in this framework, and then, of course, we’ll see how that manifests in the meantime.

QUESTION:  And then just one quick question.

MS BRUCE:  Sure.

QUESTION:  Is DOGE involved at all on this plan, or was this just a State Department proposal?

MS BRUCE:  This I think is a very good example of the importance – we know the American people love the result of DOGE.  I think there were some questions, perhaps, about how it was applied.  And what we do know is that the DOGE approach, the goal of that entity and of that committee, is something the President appreciated and still does, as do the American people very much.  

But when – I believe the President said a few weeks ago that ultimately this was going to be approach – an approach that the secretaries were going to begin to apply.  And also that does make sense, because whether it’s the secretaries or the under secretaries or the people running the offices, it is a daily – the daily work of individuals committed to the country, making a difference for the world, and the people on the ground working together know best about how this works, what could change, and how it should change.

So this is, I think, a very good example of the continuation of that mission and the value of that mission to cut government down to size, get people used to the idea that it can happen without it being a bad thing, and then watching the benefits that flow.  So secretaries now in charge of this – remember, this is a – from an executive order.  This is a whole-of-government – every department looking at how they can make their department more efficient, less burdensome, less bureaucratic.  This is the State Department’s version of that.  I would say that DOGE is not in charge of this, but this is the result of what we’ve learned and the fact that we appreciate the results, and we want more of those results.  And it is now in the hands of the secretaries as well.

All right.  All right.  Shaun.

QUESTION:  Can I switch topics?  Is it —

MS BRUCE:  All right.  Now, are we done here?  So we should switch to some other important topics we have.  As a matter of fact, one of my rules is, of course, our friend Karoline Leavitt will be starting in about 10 to 15 minutes.  I’ve started earlier here because of the nature of the issues, but there are some other issues on our plate.  Shall we start with some other ones at this point?  

QUESTION:  Sure.  Not that —  

MS BRUCE:  Shaun, go ahead.  You were first.

QUESTION:  Sure.  Not that I’m not interested in reorganization, but —

MS BRUCE:  Yes.

MS BRUCE:  I can’t confirm that, no.  

QUESTION:  Cannot? 

MS BRUCE:  I cannot.  

QUESTION:  Is it incorrect, or is it just —

MS BRUCE:  I can’t speak to that.  

QUESTION:  Okay.  But –

MS BRUCE:  Yes.  I mean, that is – yeah, that’s not something I can speak to.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Could I ask you about the Secretary’s schedule?

MS BRUCE:  Sure.

QUESTION:  Just if I’m not mistaken, you were on Fox earlier this morning, and you mentioned –

MS BRUCE:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  — the potential of travel.

MS BRUCE:  Right, sure.

QUESTION:  Could you just explain his travel schedule? 

MS BRUCE:  Yes.  There’s – and there’s – normally when we have travel schedules, you guys get an announcement, and there was no announcement.  And I was asked, and I’d known that this was possible and had mentioned it, presuming it would happen.  The – as we know, Secretary Rubio is a busy man.  He is one of the most active, if not the most active, Secretary of State I think we’ve had.  And that, of course, affects every day for him.  And so when there’s certain plans, they’re conditional.  And in this particular instance, while the meetings in London are still occurring, he will not be attending.  But that is not a statement regarding the meetings; it’s a statement about logistical issues in his schedule.

QUESTION:  Can you confirm who will participate from the U.S. side?

MS BRUCE:  Well, I do know – yes – that General Kellogg is there, and so he will be having those conversations.  So we look forward to hearing back from him about whether or not we’ve had some success in London.

QUESTION:  Just briefly from me —

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MS BRUCE:  I’m sorry?

QUESTION:  On the U.S. hostage —

MS BRUCE:  All right.  That is another issue, and I will get back to you in a moment, but we’ve had several other people who’ve been waiting to deal with that.  But let me – yeah, I think that that’s – I think that’s all I can say to you about London at this point.

QUESTION:  Could – just briefly, the Secretary on Friday said that – essentially that we’re going to see within days whether it’s a – his exact words – whether it’s possible to go forward with negotiating an end to the war.  Is that something that General Kellogg is going to be looking at now?  Is this really the time –

MS BRUCE:  Well, what we all look to is President Trump’s approach.  President Trump has expressed optimism about what’s possible.  And of course, he has great envoys and a great Secretary of State who’s been moving through to determine if that is, in fact, the case.  President Trump wants this to be solved diplomatically.  Obviously, he does not and does not believe – like, when it comes to certainly Ukraine and Russia, they’ve said multiple times, both of the Secretary and the President have said that this cannot be won militarily, and so they want diplomacy to work.  

The Secretary said a few weeks ago at NATO that it was a few weeks where we would determine as we look to Russia based on their actions, not their words.  And of course, now a few weeks have gone by, and we are in London.  And I think it’s about what will be reported, which we will know soon.  But then that is also the good news about being the Secretary of State, is that he is the one who sees everything, can make the assessment of everything that’s on the ground.  And of course, in partnership with the President, who is the visionary and the decider, that will make a determination about whether or not peace is possible.

Yes, ma’am. 

MS BRUCE:  Well, I can’t do that.  Of course, we don’t speak about direct individual visa issues.  We – visa records are confidential for everyone.  But we are aware of the reports; we’re aware of what he said.  What I can say is that our two countries have had opportunities to create a brighter future for our citizens through efforts aimed at targeting violent drug cartels that are now poisoning our citizens and destabilizing our region, creating economic opportunities that advance prosperity, and ending the regional crisis of illegal immigration.  So that’s what I know about our two countries.  His comments are not something that I’ll remark on. 

QUESTION:  But can that — 

MS BRUCE:  All right.  Yes, sir. 

MS BRUCE:  I’m sorry, about the —

QUESTION:  The Iranian talks. 

MS BRUCE:  Yes. 

QUESTION:  Do you have any updates about the third round with the Iranian?  And how do you see the Iranian engagement with Russia and China when they are updating them and talking and meeting with them about the negotiations that they have with you?  And will there be the next round direct talks with them, or it’s indirect talk? 

MS BRUCE:  Well, I – again, these are diplomatic missions.  I know I speak – often I have to say no to you when it comes to the questions you ask, because you’re looking for some details, I understand, about the nature of what may or may not happen in an issue that the world cares about.  But if it involves, of course, negotiations, diplomatic considerations, diplomatic conversations here between American leaders, I’m not going to remark on that.  As far as what might be next, I have nothing new to report to you at this point.  

All right.  Yes. 

QUESTION:  Thanks, Tammy.  The Diplomatic Security Service says it’s been assisting the Virginia Homeland Security Task Force in arresting undocumented migrants and some people who are connected to transnational gangs.  Wonder if you can say more about the decision to have DSS jump in there and whether you expect this collaboration to be ongoing and if there’s any concern that this will detract from the original mission. 

MS BRUCE:  Well, good question, if that’s accurate.  And so I need to – we’ll take that back, and I’ll get back to you on that.

And your question is going to be the last one, because we are just a few minutes to 1 o’clock.  Thank you, everyone.  We will have – I do want to let you know also for Thursday, my principal deputy, Tommy Pigott, will be briefing you for the first time.  So that will be fun on Thursday.  It’s a very, very exciting time.  Thank you, everyone.  Appreciate it.  Thank you.  Have a great rest of your day.  

(The briefing was concluded at 12:57 p.m.)