Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh Holds a Press Briefing

Oct. 15, 2024

DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY SABRINA SINGH: Ok. Good afternoon. I believe we're having some tech issues. Thank you, Jen Griffin. I heard that you helped assist, so thank you. And we'll get started.

All right. So, just a — I do have a little bit of a list here today, so just bear with me and then happy to take your questions. Over the weekend, Secretary Austin spoke twice with his Israeli counterpart, Minister of Defense Gallant. The secretary expressed his condolences for the IDF soldiers killed in a drone attack from Lebanese Hezbollah.

The secretary also reinforced the importance of Israel taking all necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of UN peacekeeping forces and Lebanese Armed Forces, and the need to pivot from military operations in Lebanon to a diplomatic pathway to provide security for civilians on both sides of the border. Secretary Austin again raised concern for the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, and stressed that steps must be taken soon to address it.

In each of his calls, the secretary reiterated the United States' commitment to Israel's security. And that's why, over the weekend, Secretary Austin authorized the deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD battery, and associated US military personnel to help bolster Israel's air defenses following Iran's attacks against Israel on April 13th and again on October 1st.

Yesterday an advance team of military personnel and initial components necessary to operate the THAAD battery arrived in Israel. And over the coming days, additional personnel and THAAD battery components will continue to arrive and will bring the THAAD to fully operational capable in the — in the near future. This decision was made in part of the broader adjustments the US military has made in recent months to support the defense of Israel and protect Americans from attacks by Iran and Iranian aligned militias.

This is not the first time the United States has deployed a THAAD battery to the region. Earlier this year, a THAAD was deployed to the Middle East following last year's October 7th attacks to defend American troops and interests in the region. In addition, the United States has previously deployed a THAAD battery to Israel in 2019 for training and integrated — and an integrated air defense exercise.

Shifting gears, the department continues to support relief efforts related to Hurricane Helene and Milton, and will continue to work with our federal, State, and local partners to help our fellow Americans. As of earlier today, the National Guard has mobilized more than 4,500 Guardsmen from seven states for response and recovery missions following Hurricane Milton. The US Army Corps of Engineers has approximately 300 people supporting with temporary roof support, infrastructure assessment, debris control, flood response and more.

The department's response efforts for Hurricane Helene continue as well. The National Guard has roughly 3,000 Guardsmen from 13 states mobilized, and approximately 1,500 active duty soldiers who are mobilized and helping with response efforts.

The US Army Corps of Engineers has more than 560 personnel engaged in 27 missions across the region. Some of that includes supporting debris control, temporary power infrastructure assessment, flood control and safe waterway assessments. Secretary Austin continues to receive updates on these response efforts, and the department continues to engage with interagency partners.

Shifting gears again, in September 2023, Secretary Austin announced that the department would for the first time begin to proactively review the military records of former service members discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell due to their sexual orientation. The review was focused on those who might have been eligible for upgrades to the characterization of their discharge or changes to their reason for separation but had not yet applied.

After a year of exceptional work, the Military Department Review Boards directed relief in 96.8 percent of the 851 cases that they proactively reviewed. What this means is that, of the nearly 13,500 individuals who were administratively separated under don't Ask, Don't tell policy and served long enough to receive a merit based characterization of service, 96 percent now have an honorable discharge.

The department is sending former service members who obtained relief through the department's Don't Ask, Don't Tell Records Review Initiative information on how to obtain copies of their new discharge certificates. We encourage all veterans who believe they have suffered an error or injustice to request a correction to their military records.

Today the secretary held a bilateral engagement with Minister of Defense Poulsen of the Kingdom of Denmark here at the Pentagon. The secretary values the United States's close relationship with the Kingdom of Denmark, and a readout will be available later online today at defense.gov.

And finally, tomorrow Secretary Austin will travel to Brussels, Belgium for — from October 16th through 18th 2024 to participate in a series of multilateral meetings, including the NATO Defense Ministerial and the Ministerial of the Force Contributing Members of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. These engagements and others will focus on strengthening NATO's collective defensive posture, adapting the D-ISIS coalition to an evolving threat from ISIS in the Middle East and globally, and enhancing military support for Ukraine.

Secretary Austin will then attend the first ever G7 defense ministers meeting October 19th in Naples, Italy, where he will also meet with his Italian minister of defense counterpart and the new Japanese Minister of Defense Nakatani. The discussions at the G7 will center on ensuring continued security assistance for Ukraine, addressing the need to deescalate tensions in the Middle East, exchanging views on the importance of a free and open Indo-Pacific, discussing support for partners in Africa, and fostering additional cooperation on the defense industrial base and issues among world's leading democratic economies. Later on in the trip, Secretary Austin will conclude with an official engagement in Vatican City.

And with that, I'd be happy to take your questions. Tara? And I know there was a lot at the top.

Q: That was a lot, but that's good. All right. So, with the secretary's consultations with Minister Gallant over the last couple of weeks since Iran's ballistic missile attack, has he been encouraging Israel to not retaliate against Iran's oil facilities or nuclear facilities? And is he encouraged by indications that Iran — or that Israel may avoid those targets?

MS. SINGH: So, thanks, Tara, for the question. So, as you saw over the weekend, the secretary spoke with Minister Gallant twice. I don't have more to provide beyond those readouts. Again, speculating on a potential response from Israel, you know, I'd refer you to them to speak to their own operations, but I just don't have more to provide than those readouts.

Q: Ok. So, trying it from another angle then, would the secretary prefer that Israel not strike Iran's nuclear facilities?

MS. SINGH: I appreciate the question in a — in a different angle. I just — I'm not going to be able to provide more than the readouts. The secretary, as we've said from the — for a few weeks now, we continue to engage the Israelis on — you know, and speak with them about what a response — what their response might look like, but I'm just not going to be able to provide more on that.

Natasha?

Q: Thanks, Sabrina. So, in the letter that Secretary Austin coauthored with Secretary Blinken to the Israelis, I believe it was sent earlier this week, was that letter specifically a threat that the US military is not going to be able to provide weapons to Israel anymore if they do not, within 30 days, get more aid into Gaza? It was a little bit vague in its wording. It kind of said that there will be implications for US law if they don't change what they're doing. But is this specifically a threat to withhold certain forms of military assistance if they don't move forward with changing the amount of aid into Gaza?

MS. SINGH: So, in terms of the letter that you referenced, I can confirm that Secretary Austin, with Secretary Blinken, they cosigned a letter that went to their Israeli counterparts. This was personal private correspondence, so I'm not going to get into more specifics of it other than, you know, it was expressing concern about the humanitarian conditions in Gaza. But beyond that, I'm just not going to be able to provide more details.

Q: How can you say that It's personal and private when it's the secretary of state and secretary of defense sending a letter?

MS. SINGH: The secretary of defense and secretary of state can send private correspondence to their Israeli counterparts, or counterparts all over the world. That doesn't necessarily mean that those letters need to be public. I understand that there is a reporting out there and imagery out there of a letter, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a public letter for public consumption.

Q:

MS. SINGH: It was — can I just — can I just finish? It was private correspondence because it was addressed to their Israeli counterparts, both of them. They send letters all the time to — whether it be to members of Congress or their counterparts all over the world that are not intended for public consumption.

So, the letters weren't addressed to, you know, Associated Press or to Fox. It was addressed to two people, to their counterparts. And it was a letter that — you know, I'm just not going to get into private correspondence beyond that.

Q: It's on US government letterhead, correct?

MS. SINGH: I cannot —

Q: If it's private, is it like on, you know, pink stationery or is it on letterhead from the US government?

MS. SINGH: I would assume it was on letterhead, Jen. But what I can tell you is that just because something is on letterhead doesn't mean that it's meant for public consumption or to be leaked to the press.

Q: FOIA.

MS. SINGH: Sure, yeah.

Q: And so —

MS. SINGH: Of course. But that's still — that's still —

Q: . I mean, that's — if you are a US government official and you're writing to your counterparts, that's not private or personal. It — you are a US government official.

MS. SINGH:

You're a US —

Q: That's not —

MS. SINGH: Can I just — can we just — I understand the back and forth here. But like – so I think in fairness, US government officials can engage their counterparts. They can have closed door meetings with their counterparts. They can do calls with their counterparts. We provide readouts of those calls. There are letters that are sent often between government officials that are not intended to be made public.

I have seen some of the social media circulating around this letter. I understand the questions that you're asking about it, but this was meant to be a private letter. I shouldn't have said personal, a private letter between government officials talking about the situation in Gaza. And it was intended to be private. And those are conversations that also happen in person that are private conversations. We don't read all of those out every single time.

Can I come around the room, or do you have another one on this? Sure.

Q: And it's also citing official US policy on how they qualify someone or a country to qualify for foreign military financing. That's — I mean, that's just US policy.

MS. SINGH: Yeah. So, I'm just not going to be able to go into more details on the letter itself. Again, I confirmed that a letter was sent. It was meant to be private. Someone obviously felt the need to get out this private correspondence, but I'm just not going to be able to get into more details on that.

Phil?

Q: So, the State Department, the spokesperson said that — you know, talking about this letter, said that, you know, we need the quotas. We need to see further changes by the government of Israel. And I'm wondering, you know, what — can you talk about the Pentagon's views on changes to how Israel is safeguarding civilians or failing to do so?

MS. SINGH: So, I think, without speaking to the letter itself, you've seen us, from this podium and from a few of the readouts that the secretary has done with Minister Gallant, speak about the deteriorating and dire humanitarian situation within Gaza. Just because there's other, you know, engagements happening in the region doesn't mean that we've taken our eye off of what's happening in Gaza.

And we know that, you know, humanitarian aid still is stalling to get in — into Gaza and to reach, you know, civilians that need it desperately. So, that's some of the things that the secretary talks about in his calls with Minister Gallant. Those are some of the things that we've also read out publicly in our readouts.

This letter follows on a letter that I believe Secretary Blinken sent in April. We're looking to, you know, see more — or to see concrete measures taken to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which we know continues to be an issue. And we want to see how they, you know, conduct operations that they're considering civilians in the battle space. And that's what we've said from the beginning.

Q: And this administration's been criticized for failing to use its leverage, which is weapons to Israel, to influence Israeli military actions. Is that — is that a fair characterization, especially after this letter has now been made public?

MS. SINGH: You know, I would push back on that. And again, without going down the rabbit hole of private conversations, but we have had very frank and direct conversations with our — you know, the secretary has with his Israeli counterpart. Not going to go into a line item list of every single time they've done something differently because of our advice or because of conversations that we've had, but, you know, we have seen them change their behavior in certain circumstances. Is there more that we are working with them on? There is, and we're going to continue to engage with them on that.

Q: So, you've used that leverage? You've threatened to withhold weapons?

MS. SINGH: I didn't say that. I said that we continue to have frank conversations with them. As you know, we do still have that one shipment of the 2,000 pound bombs currently still paused. But I'm just not going to be able to go beyond that. Joe?

Q: Thanks. On your advice, and you said you've seen some changes in their behavior. Among the things that the secretary has mentioned that you just mentioned were opposition to bombing or targeting densely populated areas in Beirut from Israeli airstrikes. We haven't seen that happen in the past couple of days. Is that something that they committed to the secretary or to anybody in this department of stopping?

MS. SINGH: So, I'm just not going to be able to go beyond the conversations and the readouts that we provided. But one of the things that I think you've seen in the readouts is the secretary impart the need to take into account innocent civilians, whether it be in Beirut or on that border region in the northern part of Israel where they are conducting operations to clear where Hezbollah infrastructure is. We've always said from the beginning that civilians need to be considered in the battle space and they — measures need to be taken to protect innocent lives. That's something that is not new; it's something that we've continued to say from the very beginning.

Q: And on that, did Israel request that?

MS. SINGH: It was a conversation between, I would say both governments. I think it's fair to say that we've seen now two unprecedented attacks from Iran on April 13 and October 1. You've seen our destroyers engage from the sea. This is now a land-based capability that will be able to help defend against another ballistic missile attack if Iran did choose to respond in that way.

Q: Just one final one. The former top, I guess, policy chief for the Middle East here, Dana Stroul, spoke to FTE I guess today. She says that the Israeli munitions issue is a serious issue, and that the US cannot continue to supply Ukraine and Israel at the same pace because US stockpiles are not limitless. Is the department able to provide weapons to both countries as long as needed?

MS. SINGH: Well, I think it's fair — that's a fair assessment that our supplies are not endless. You've seen us request supplemental packages to help be able to support Ukraine and to support Israel. You've seen us have issues when it comes to reinvigorating the defense industrial base. So, I think we are continuing to support Ukraine in what it needs on the battlefield. We're continuing to support Israel in its self-defense. We're going to continue to engage the defense industrial base on how best to do that.

But part of the way we have to work and to continue to do all this on all fronts is we have to work with congress. And not to belabor the point, but for nearly six months, we had a delayed supplemental package that we didn't get which delayed our own shelves from being backfilled. That puts pressure on the system. But one thing that we're always going to do and one thing that the secretary is always considering is our own readiness.

So, we always have to weigh that when we're supporting, whether it be Ukraine, the Middle East and our — Israel's self-defense, our own forces and then of course always keeping an eye on the Indo-Pacific. Ann?

Q: So, putting the letter aside, is there anything that you can say that Secretary Austin wants to see done? What specific things does he want to see Israel do in the next 30 days to increase aid? And then also there was mention of the NSM-20. So, is there a concern that Israel is breaking these policies that US weapons are being used in possible war crimes?

MS. SINGH: So, just not going to be able to get more into the letter. In terms of what the secretary wants to see within Gaza, I mean, you've seen it in his readouts, what he's said, that he wants to see, and what I read out at the top, is the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate in Gaza. And that's why, I mean, we did what we did over the summer which surging and installing a maritime corridor in to get humanitarian aid in in any way that we could. And we're also conducting airdrops as well.

We know that more trucks need to get in, and we've said that from the beginning when we installed JLOTS into the beach in Gaza. The land routes are the most effective way to get aid flowing to the civilians that need it most. So, of course, we want to see those corridors open up. That's something that the secretary continues to emphasize in his calls. I'm not going to be able to go more into the letter other than what I said earlier. But the humanitarian situation in Gaza certainly remains on the secretary's mind and in all of his calls with Mr. Galant. Wafaa ?

Q: Hi, Sabrina, first on the THAAD that requires a significant number of boots on the ground. Are we seeing here a shift in this administration's no boots on the ground policy? And then I have another question on Lebanon.

MS. SINGH: Sure, so just to clarify, Wafaa, the THAAD will take approximately 100 soldiers to operate it, no change in terms of — I mean, just to — sorry, take a step back. We've had personnel in Israel before October 7. So, we've had a relationship with Israel and having a military footprint there.

Think of the THAAD as an augmentation to just Israel's air defenses and exactly what our DDGs do in the Eastern Med. They provide a ballistic missile defense capability that is sea based, this one's land based. So, it just augments Israel's self-defense. And we saw the attacks that happened on April 13 and October 1. We know that we need that additional layer on land and we're happy to provide it.

Q: On Lebanon, in his recent phone calls with secretary — with Mr. Gallant, Secretary Austin reinforced the need to shift from military operations in Lebanon to a diplomatic pathway in a feasible — as soon as feasible. Has Secretary Austin asked Mr. Gallant of the timeline? Did he have the chance to discuss a timeline with him about the operations in Lebanon? And I have another follow up.

MS. SINGH: Sure, I don't have anything to add on timelines, but the secretary, of course, continues to urge for a diplomatic off ramp here. We know that that is the best path forward. That's what we want to see. That's what this administration continues to push forward for. And so, that's what he emphasizes in his calls. You had another one?

Q: Yes, has the Pentagon reached out to the Lebanese Armed Forces after last week's Israeli strikes that killed two Lebanese armed forces soldiers? And is the assessment here at the Pentagon still that Israel is just targeting Hezbollah, given also that it targeted the UNIFIL forces in south Lebanon as well last week?

MS. SINGH: So, our assessment is that, yes, they are still conducting operations to go after Lebanese, Hezbollah infrastructure, C2 nodes along that northern border. As you heard me read out at the very beginning, we express deep concern over what happened with those UN peacekeepers that were within Lebanon. But that is still our assessment that they are conducting operations against Hezbollah.

Q: But you didn't reach out to Lebanon?

MS. SINGH: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to not answer your question. I don't have anything to read out from the secretary's level. I can't speak for other components within the department, but nothing from the secretary's level. Charlie?

Q: Sabrina?

MS. SINGH: Charlie?

Q: Private or otherwise, there's a formalization about a letter — it's a document, it's signed, it can be traced. Who does that serve? Is it because the United States needs to be seen to be doing something? Knowing this letter would get out signed by these two very important figures at this particular time, why wasn't it a phone call? Why was it a letter?

MS. SINGH: Okay, well, appreciate the question, but we didn't know it was going to get out. We didn't know that someone was going to — all I can tell you is that the secretary and Secretary Blinken sent a letter, not going to go into those details. I've seen the social media reports out there, but I'm just not going to go into more details of a letter.

Why do you make a phone call versus sending an email versus sending a text? Look, I'm not going to go into to the decision making of why a letter versus a phone call. But it was meant to be a private correspondence between two senior administration officials from the Department of Defense and Department of State to their counterparts. Again, I understand it is an official letter on official letterhead, but those correspondence are still meant to be private. And so, I'm just not going to go into more details on the letter.

Q: There's a paper trail, it was literally making a statement. It is literally a statement.

MS. SINGH: Yeah, but Charlie, you also have to understand that we do statements that are press releases that are for press consumption. The secretary does calls with his counterparts all the time. We don't put a live stream of that on Defense.gov for everyone to listen to. Those are meant to be private conversations. This was a private correspondence with their counterparts. Again, I'm just not going to be able to go into more details on the letter.

Q: Can I ask about the THAAD.

MS. SINGH: Sure.

Q: In terms of when it becomes operational, I know we can't discuss that. But what specific role does it fill? What hole was missing in Israel’s Defenses, America's, you know, very robust defenses there. And why now? There have been — there's been lots of trouble in the past. What specifically does the THAAD bring to this fight that isn't there already?

MS. SINGH: So, you'll remember that on October 1st, it was nearly — approximately 200 ballistic missiles that Iran fired towards Iran. That was nearly double what we saw on April 13th. So, they launched more of a certain capability.

On April 13th, we had more of our fighters in the air shooting down UAVs and, you know, cruise missiles. Our fighters are not going to engage these types of ballistic missiles. The DDGs in the Eastern Med on April 13th were the ones that engaged the ballistic missiles.

So, what we saw on October 1st was them, you know, adjusting their strategy. We have to augment Israel's air defense systems. We are there to help in their air defense and in their self-defense and, in doing so, augmenting their air defense.

So, why now? Should Iran choose to respond again with, you know, let's — you know, again not trying to go down a hypothetical, but if it's more ballistic missiles or what we saw previously, a THAAD adds capability to Israel's air defenses and can help shoot those down and protect, you know innocent civilians there, and that includes Americans who are in Israel.

So, you know, we've made some of these force posture adjustments in the past. We are always nimble, always able to adjust as needed. This was a decision that the secretary decided to make.

Fadi?

Q: Thank you, Sabrina.

MS. SINGH: Of course.

Q: So, as you said, the deployment of the THAAD in case Iran decides to attack again, which means potentially US soldiers will — might be in harm's way. For a year now, well, you've been telling us the US is not involved in this conflict. Putting troops on the ground now wouldn't make the US involved in the conflict?

MS. SINGH: No, Fadi.

Q: If you do, you know, potentially these soldiers could be targeted as well by Iran.

MS. SINGH: So, Fadi, I think it's important to remember that the THAAD serves a similar purpose to our DDGs. They — it is an air defense system that is helping augment Israel's air defenses that can help shoot down ballistic missiles. This is also meant to be a temporary provision of air defense capabilities to better protect Israel.

It's in keeping with our intent to reduce tensions, and it is, you know, also there to help de-escalate. But of course, as the president has said from the beginning, we are there to support in Israel's self-defense. This is a capability that we felt was needed.

Q: Yeah. But, I mean, helping — assisting with the defense of Israel from a ship is different from putting forces on the ground inside Israel while Israel is being hit by ballistic missiles.

MS. SINGH: Both forces in the sea or land are in harm's way, Fadi.

Q: Putting them inside Israel is different as — you know, from a political standpoint. This will open probably — or not probably, potentially open up the door for maybe them being in harm's way and then the US having to respond to Iranian attack. What I'm saying is this is — this potentially opens the door for US to be — to get more involved in this conflict, not the opposite.

MS. SINGH: Fadi, just taking a step back, our destroyers in the Red Sea are getting shot at by the Houthis, you know, pretty regularly. Our forces in Iraq and Syria getting attacked by Iran backed militias, you know, you — from, you know, October 17th there was a regular cadence there. We have forces deployed all around the world in harm's way, and our forces are bravely serving to protect American citizens and, in this case, to help with Israel's self-defense.

While I understand your question, again, this is an operational deployment very similar to what you're seeing whether it be in the Red Sea or in the Eastern Mediterranean. This is a capability that is going to help augment Israel's air defenses. This is not meant to draw us into a larger regional conflict. It is a commitment that the president made that we will be there to stand in Israel's self-defense.

Q:

MS. SINGH: Sure.

Q: One more question. Although — I'd like to note that deployment in the Red Sea is an international water. It's not on sovereign land or within the territorial —

MS. SINGH: Sure.

Q: Water of another nation.

MS. SINGH: But they're still in harm's way.

Q: I know. But that's different from deploying to a nation that might be attacked because of its own actions, which is different.

MS. SINGH: Well, I mean, Fadi, to be —

Q: But I don't want to get into it.

MS. SINGH: Well, you don't want to get into it, but just pulling it back, you're talking about a nation's own actions. But let's remember what happened on October 7th.

Q: Ok. We can remember the last 75 years, but that — that's not my point. Another question. Did the — did the secretary and his last two phone calls with Mr. Gallant express opposition to Israel's strikes inside Beirut, capital of Lebanon?

MS. SINGH: I — without going beyond the readout, the secretary reiterated the need to do more when it comes to protecting innocent civilians. I'll just leave it at that.

Q: Thank you.

Q: Thank you, Sabrina. Could you confirm if this is the first time the US sent troops to Israel since October 7th?

MS. SINGH: Well, we've had a — we've had a military presence in Israel before October 7th. We had personnel there after October 7th. You might remember with — you know, whether JLOTS or assisting with hostage rescue and recovery. So, no, not the first time that military personnel has been within Israel since October 7th. If you're asking about the THAAD specifically, we deployed a THAAD to the region post October 7th and a THAAD was there in 2019 for an exercise.

I'll come back. I'm just going to go to some of the other — um-hmm.

Q: I mean, I guess you have had batteries in other countries in the region. Would you mind if you reveal what countries host those THAADs?

MS. SINGH: I would mind revealing those. I'm not going to give an operational placemat of where all of our air defenses are. I don't think that really helps our — well, actually I think that would help our adversaries. But I think what you can be assured of is that we're always going to have capabilities in the region needed to protect our forces, but I'm just not going to be able to give you that readout.

Q: THAAD in Israel, not mentioning them in other countries.

MS. SINGH: Because of what we are doing to defend Israel, it made sense to announce this.

Will?

Q: Thank you very much, Sabrina. Do you have a back and forth about the THAAD system and how they are always all around the region in harm's way, but this time —

MS. SINGH: Well, we have troops all over the world, serving all over the world in harm's way, yeah.

Q: That's correct, and anytime anything could happen, that's obviously, you know, granted. But Iran has already committed to attacking Israel again if they were to be attacked. So, making US personnel basically a military shield for Israel against Iran, they could very well be hit by Iran. So, have you taken that into consideration? Because that could suck the United States and Iran right into the middle of the war.

MS. SINGH: Well, let me be clear. Again, we don't seek a war with Iran and we don't want to see a wider regional conflict. But Iran proxy groups have attacked US forces, you know, since October 17th, whether it be, you know, at any of the bases in Iraq and Syria or with our forces operating in the Red Sea or in the Eastern Med. So, again, this is a capability that is land-based but that serves a similar purpose to what our destroyers did on October 1st in the Eastern Mediterranean, which was to help augment Israel's air defenses.

Q: So far, the US has always said to Iran don't, and they have done some stuff. So, is that the basic message again, that we have US personnel now where you say you're going to attack, so don't attack at all. Is that the message?

MS. SINGH: The message is that the United States stands with Israel in their self-defense, and that message has been clear from the very beginning.

I will come around. Carla, yeah.

Q: Thanks. A couple of clarifications and then one THAAD question. So, you said you're not going to discuss the letter, but you are — you are confirming the authenticity of the letter that has been circulating online, right? There's no dispute on that that?

MS. SINGH: I am not confirming the authenticity that's circulating. I am confirming that they cosigned a letter that was sent to their Israeli counterparts.

Q: Ok. And then should Israel fail to demonstrate commitments such as — like you said to Ann, increasing the corridors etc., is the US military debating right now whether or not to withhold military support to Israel?

MS. SINGH: Yeah. So, appreciate the question, Carla. Israel continues to receive support from the United States, whether it be through FMS sales or what you're seeing, you know, that we're doing in Israel's self-defense. I just don't have more to provide.

Q: But should they not make the changes that you have called for —

MS. SINGH: Yeah, I'm just not going to go into more details.

Q: Ok. And then on the THAAD, you know, you announced the THAAD to Israel. Should there be another THAAD in Eastern Europe? Romania, Poland have been some of the places that have been mentioned in the past. Why would those THAADs not be used to help defend Eastern — excuse me, Western Ukraine from Russian attacks? Because if you can send a THAAD to Israel to help stop attacks from Iran, why would a THAAD in Poland or Romania to help defend civilians in Ukraine.

MS. SINGH: Okay, so different capabilities, different wars, different regions. The commitments also to Israel and Ukraine are different. We have a long-standing partnership to come to Israel's self-defense. You've seen the president commit that from October 7. And when Ukraine was attacked over two years ago, the president made a commitment to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

But again, you're talking about different capabilities being moved and what's needed for — should Iran attack again, is a THAAD. For engagements from what Russia is doing in Ukraine, different capabilities such as, as you know, I don't need to go through the long list. But not to use this expression, but it is a little bit of apples and oranges here.

So, I don't want to go down the whole list of everything that we're providing Ukraine to everything that we're providing to Israel. But what I can tell you is this administration, this department continues to support both in the different needs that they need.

Q: Just a quick follow up on that. With all due respect, the different — I need a little bit of clarification on the different capabilities, because Russia has fired ballistic missiles. I believe they used them in Yavoriv in western Ukraine towards the start of the war when they were attacking a base that had been used by international forces. So, why couldn't a THAAD, if it's already defending NATO territory, also defend western Ukrainians against ballistic missiles should Russia decide to fire more?

MS. SINGH: Yeah, Carli, I think I answered that question. Constantine.

Q: Thanks. Just continuing the THAAD conversation, can you say where this unit is coming from? Are you guys deploying it from the US or —

MS. SINGH: —It's coming from the United States.

Q: It's coming from the United States, okay. Are you able to say any more specifics than that?

MS. SINGH: Not more specifics than that.

Q: Fair enough. And then more just more broadly I guess, following up on sort of the conversation that we've been having and some of the questions my colleagues have asked. When we look back to, for example, JLOTS, this building had a very strong reticence and went out of its way to point out no boots on the ground to the point that maritime experts said it hampered the operation. It really limited and you guys had to pull it out because personnel couldn't step foot onto Gaza. But it seems now we're incredibly willing to put troops in harm's way. Square the circle, I mean, what changed.

MS. SINGH: Well, Israel is different than Gaza. And before October 7, we had military personnel within Israel, and we have continued — that's been a relationship and partnership that goes far back. In Gaza, the president committed to not putting troops on the ground there, which is why you saw what we did with JALOTS.

We continue to support and stand by Israel in their self-defense. I know there's a lot of parsing here, but the THAAD capability, while it is going to Israel, it is temporary. It is a temporary provision of air capabilities that they need should they face another attack like they did on October 1. But that doesn't minimize, again, what we did in Gaza.

We're incredibly proud of all the humanitarian — whether it be food, water, medical supplies that we were able to get in during that time. But more needs to be done and it needs to be done quickly. And that is something that the secretary continues to impress upon in all of his calls. Yeah, in the back.

Q: with the Asahi Shimbun. Shifting over to the Indo-Pacific, on Monday day, China conducted drills surrounding Taiwan, which alerted and alarmed the Taiwanese government. The Pentagon released a statement condemning these acts. That being said, my question is, is there any plans to change US force posture in the region or to conduct additional operations in reaction to China's drills?

MS. SINGH: Thanks for the question. So, no force posture changes to make today. It's something — in reference to what you mentioned, it's something that we monitored. And as the White House noted last week, it is long-standing tradition for Taiwan's president to deliver remarks on October 10. Again, we remain focused on the Indo-Pacific, but I just don't have any force posture changes to announce today.

I will take a few more. I know there are some follow ups, so one here and then I'll come and come back here. Yeah.

Q: Thank you, Sabrina. There's been some new reporting around the 2023 drone incursion over Langley Air Force Base. Does the DOD have an idea of what objects it might have been?

MS. SINGH: Thanks so much for the question. So, specifically, Langley Air Force Base did experience incursions of unauthorized unmanned aerial systems last year in December 2023. The number of those UAS incursions did fluctuate on any given day, but they didn't appear to exhibit any hostile intent. It's something that we have kept our eye on, but I just don't have more to provide on that. Jen, sure.

Q: I wanted to follow up on.

MS. SINGH: Yeah, of course.

Q: So, why couldn't the Air Force shoot down these drones if they were coming towards the base, over the base. If they were surveilling, which it proved that when one went down on January 5, it was found to have video surveilling a sensitive base. Why couldn't they shoot them down? The Air Force can shoot down Cessnas if they get close to sensitive facilities in Washington, New York?

MS. SINGH: So, the commander — or any commander of any base has the authority necessary to protect forces, to protect facilities, infrastructure, and capability there. So, I'm not aware that they did not have any authority to shoot it down or to shoot anything down. I do know that with all of these incursions, given that it's on US soil there is another level of coordination within the interagency that needs to take place. But the commander absolutely had his or her authorities to engage any systems that are a threat to the base.

Q: And wouldn't surveillance or intelligence gathering be a threat to the base?

MS. SINGH: Yeah, again, Jen, this is something that I know the department continues to analyze. I don't have any information, or I can't confirm what you're saying. All I can tell you is that the Air Force base did experience a number of incursions and that we have been looking into it. And if I have more to share, I certainly will.

Q: Do you know where the drones were shot from?

MS. SINGH: I don't. Tara and then – Tara, one in the back, and then Charlie.

Q: Back to the letter, understanding it's a private letter that was not intended to be released publicly. Did the secretary coordinate this letter with the White House or notify the president or NSC that they were sending this to their Israeli counterparts?

MS. SINGH: Yeah, so without going into the interagency court on private correspondence, I think it's fair to say that there was an effort by the interagency here. You can see that with one of the cosigners being Secretary Blinken, but I'm just going to leave it at that.

Q: But did the president — was the president notified and was he supportive of this letter going out?

MS. SINGH: I'm not going to get in — you'd have to ask the White House; I'm not going to get into more details on that. Yeah, in the back and then I'll go to Charlie.

Q: Thanks, Sabrina. Heads of German intelligence have reported an increase in Russian backed sabotage and disinformation. There was one particular incident that was reported last week involving a package catching fire before being loaded on a cargo plane. There have also been reports of drones flying over critical infrastructure.

Is the DOD aware of this? Is there some sort of increased cooperation with the German authorities regarding this? And are the drones that were mentioned reportedly flying over military bases here being investigated in that context? And as a follow up, what gave the impression that there was no hostile intent?

MS. SINGH: In terms of the no hostile intent, that's our initial assessment. As I mentioned to Jen who asked about this, while I don't have more to provide, it's something that we're continuing to do an assessment on. In terms of the reports that you're citing. I don't have anything to add to that.

But what I can tell you is we always work with our German counterparts and, as you know, we have forces that engage with our German counterparts at different times whether it be in exercises or in diplomatic channels or military channels. And something that we keep an open line of communication on, but I just don't have anything to add on those reports that you mentioned. Charlie, to close us out.

Q: You had mentioned the destroyers that were involved in the last large-scale Iranian attack. Do we ever get hard numbers for how many successful intercepts they got?

MS. SINGH: They shot down multiple ballistic missiles, but I don't have the hard numbers. I will be honest with you that, if there is another attack, I just don't think we're going to broadcast how many we were able to shoot down successfully. But I can tell you it was multiple.

Q: But there is a need that either the United States or Israel or both assessed that this is a significant step forward. You are symbolically and physically putting US forces on Israeli soil, which is different than being at sea. So, that need must have been so pressing. Was it because the attack was more successful, or did they get to the military bases? Are the Israelis that concerned about a large-scale attack from Iran to put US forces on Israeli soil?

MS. SINGH: The attack was almost twice as large as the — as the attack that we saw on April 13th in terms of ballistic missiles that were used. So, are we concerned? Yeah, of course we're concerned.

Q: level, like at that scale —

MS. SINGH: I —

Q: Or higher?

MS. SINGH: We don't know what a response could look like, but we're not going to also wait and find out. We're going to do things that we need to protect — whether it be US forces, or what you've seen us do before. We've, you know, taken force protection measures at our bases, you know, moved DDGs closer to the — in the Eastern Med to help defend Israel.

I completely acknowledge that this is different and that you're putting, you know, a capability with people on land, but it is also a capability that is similar to what is on those DDGs, and it helps augment Israel's air defenses.

So, we don't know what a potential possible response could look like from Iran. But what this does is it helps bolster the air defenses, should there be a response. It's one additional system to help engage.

Thanks everyone.