Assistance from Claude AI.
Executive Summary
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on November 12, 2025, that the 43-day government shutdown—the longest in U.S. history—was expected to end that evening with President Trump’s signature on a clean continuing resolution passed by House Republicans. Leavitt placed full blame for the shutdown on Democrats, citing impacts including hundreds of thousands of federal employees missing paychecks, millions losing SNAP benefits, nearly 20,000 flight delays affecting 5.2 million travelers, and potential fourth-quarter economic growth declining by two percentage points according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. The briefing was dominated by questions about newly released Epstein emails, which Leavitt dismissed as a Democratic distraction, defending Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and citing victim Virginia Giuffre’s statements that she witnessed nothing inappropriate. Leavitt also confirmed the administration is exploring legal options for $2,000 rebate checks to Americans funded by tariff revenue, defended the administration’s economic record including the “largest middle-class tax cuts in American history,” addressed questions about the BBC lawsuit over edited footage, and discussed various policy matters including healthcare negotiations, a 50-year mortgage proposal, and Trump’s recent Walter Reed medical imaging.
Note: This briefing began with remarks from FBI Director Kash Patel announcing a fentanyl precursor agreement with China. That portion has been omitted from this analysis per editorial direction, and this post focuses on Press Secretary Leavitt’s remarks and the Q&A session that followed.
Participants
Karoline Leavitt – White House Press Secretary
Bev Turner – GB News (UK-based outlet operating in Washington, DC)
Weijia – Reporter (network affiliation not specified in transcript)
Mary – Reporter
Reagan – Reporter
John – Reporter
Zolan – Reporter
Stephen – Reporter
Eamon – Reporter
Danny – Reporter
Katherine – Reporter
Additional unnamed reporters
Detailed Analysis
Government Shutdown Ending After 43 Days
Press Secretary Leavitt opened her remarks by announcing that the government shutdown—which she characterized as entirely the fault of the Democratic Party—was expected to end that evening. She explained that the shutdown had lasted 43 days, making it the longest in U.S. history, and repeatedly emphasized what she framed as the devastating human and economic costs.
To understand the significance of this announcement, it’s helpful to know that a government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass appropriations bills or a continuing resolution to fund federal operations. During a shutdown, many federal employees are furloughed or required to work without immediate pay, and various government services are curtailed. The longer a shutdown continues, the more severe the impacts become on federal workers, benefit recipients, and the broader economy.
Leavitt detailed what she described as the damage caused: “Hundreds of thousands of federal employees have missed their paychecks. Tens of billions in wages and benefits were withheld, impacting vulnerable families.” She noted that “millions of low income Americans missed their SNAP benefits”—referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps, which helps low-income individuals and families purchase food.
The aviation industry faced significant disruptions, according to Leavitt: “Nearly 20,000 flights at airports across the country were delayed due to staffing shortages, causing Americans to miss family events, vacations and work obligations.” She cited figures from Airlines for America, an industry trade group, stating that “an estimated 5.2 million travelers have had their flights disrupted over the course of the Democrat shutdown.” These delays would have occurred because air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents, while considered essential employees who must continue working during shutdowns, do so without receiving paychecks until the government reopens.
The economic impacts extended beyond aviation. Leavitt stated: “Our economy has lost billions and billions of dollars in economic activity over the course of this shutdown, hurting consumer sentiment and crushing the travel and hospitality industries.” She referenced a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate suggesting “the Democrat shutdown could end up decreasing fourth quarter economic growth by two whole percentage points”—a substantial reduction that would significantly affect the overall health of the U.S. economy.
Perhaps most concerning for economic policymakers, Leavitt argued that the shutdown created serious data problems: “The Democrat shutdown made it extraordinarily difficult for economists, investors and policymakers at the Federal Reserve to receive critical government data.” She claimed Democrats “may have permanently damaged the federal statistical system with October CPI and jobs reports likely never being released.” The Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures inflation, while jobs reports track employment levels—both are crucial indicators that guide Federal Reserve decisions about interest rates and other monetary policy tools.
Leavitt framed the Democratic motivation for the shutdown as “pure partisan politics,” stating they “started this shutdown with a ridiculous demand to force taxpayer funded healthcare benefits to illegal aliens who broke into our country.” She argued that even after it became clear President Trump and Republicans “would never force American taxpayers to pay for free health care for illegals,” Democrats “kept dragging this reckless government shutdown on for weeks longer to boost their turnout in an election perhaps, one may guess.”
The solution, according to Leavitt, was “the clean CR being voted on today in the House of Representatives”—a continuing resolution, which is a temporary funding measure that typically maintains spending at current levels rather than setting new appropriations. She emphasized this was “what President Trump and Republicans have supported from day one,” and predicted that “our troops, air traffic controllers and federal employees will be back to receiving their regular paychecks” and “families in need will get back to receiving their food purchasing assistance.”
Later in the briefing, when pressed about the deal reversing administration reductions in force (RIFs) and prohibiting more through January, Leavitt acknowledged approximately 6,000 workers would be affected but defended this as small compared to the overall workforce reduction the administration had achieved since January. She stated: “Obviously the president’s main priority was to reopen the federal government and get people back to work, and that’s what this deal accomplishes.”
First Lady’s Foster Care Initiative Announcement
Before addressing the shutdown, Leavitt made a brief scheduling announcement about the First Lady’s upcoming activities. She explained that the following day, President Trump would join the First Lady “in the East Room for an executive order signing aimed at expanding opportunities for education, career development, housing and other resources for young people transitioning from foster care to adulthood.”
This initiative, Leavitt noted, “is part of the first lady’s fostering the future efforts, which are a Be Best initiative.” Be Best was a signature program from the First Lady focusing on children’s well-being, online safety, and opioid abuse. The focus on foster care youth transitioning to adulthood addresses a vulnerable population that often faces significant challenges when they “age out” of the foster care system at 18 or 21, depending on the state, and must navigate housing, education, employment, and other adult responsibilities without the family support system that most young adults rely on.
Economic Policy and Affordability Defense
Leavitt devoted significant time to defending the administration’s economic record, which she framed as a response to what she called misleading media coverage. She noted the “ironic” situation where affordability “didn’t receive that much attention when Joe Biden was here and inflation was at a record high nine percent, the worst inflation crisis in modern American history.”
To understand her argument, it helps to know that inflation measures how quickly prices are rising. When Leavitt referenced nine percent inflation under Biden, she was referring to the peak inflation rate reached in mid-2022, when the Consumer Price Index showed year-over-year price increases of about 9.1 percent—the highest level in roughly four decades. High inflation erodes purchasing power, meaning people’s paychecks don’t stretch as far.
Leavitt argued that President Trump “won a landslide election in part to address the affordability issues created by Joe Biden and the Democrats,” and claimed “that’s exactly what President Trump has done since day one of his administration.” She found it “completely absurd” that “the same Democrats who just shut down the federal government to sabotage our economy, rob people of their paychecks and also helped Joe Biden ratchet up inflation to nine percent are now suddenly affordability champions.”
She then outlined several policy achievements. First, Leavitt claimed that “in less than 10 short months, President Trump signed the largest middle-class tax cuts in American history, including no tax on tips overtime and Social Security, which will guarantee that next year Americans are going to put more money back into their pockets.” The elimination of taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits would mean workers in those categories would take home more of their earnings, though the details of implementation and revenue impacts were not discussed.
On energy policy, Leavitt stated that “the president has completely unleashed American energy dominance to help bring gasoline prices to the lowest in five years, and we expect them to continue to decrease.” She added that the administration “has also lowered energy costs overall,” noting there was “more work to do” but emphasizing that “the president’s deregulatory and pro-American energy agenda is absolutely going to continue to drive down prices.”
Leavitt explained why energy was central to the broader inflation picture: “This is key because we know energy costs are the number one driver of inflation.” She drew a direct comparison: “Just look at what Joe Biden did to our energy industry over the past four years of his administration and look at what happened to inflation as a result, everything became more expensive.” The logic here is that energy costs—gasoline, electricity, natural gas—affect the price of virtually everything else, since energy is needed to manufacture, transport, and deliver goods and services.
On healthcare, Leavitt stated that “to lower prescription drug prices and health care costs, the president has been working around the clock on this issue. He is obsessed with negotiating these good deals on behalf of the American people to bring down pharmaceutical costs and drug costs for Americans, and he has done so on a number of fronts.”
For small businesses, Leavitt highlighted regulatory reform: “To fuel small businesses, lower their costs and incentivize hiring, the Trump administration has already cut 30 unnecessary regulations for every new one on the books, which we know will save employers and small businesses across the country thousands of dollars in regulatory burdens.” This references what’s often called a “one-in, thirty-out” regulatory approach, where for every new regulation added, thirty existing ones must be eliminated.
Leavitt cited several positive economic indicators: “Wages are rising at the fastest pace of the start of a presidential administration in 60 years. The cost of the typical new mortgage is down by nearly $3,000 per year.” She acknowledged “there is much work to do” but maintained that “President Trump has already made great progress in cleaning up the economic disaster that was created by Joe Biden.”
BBC Lawsuit and Press Freedom Questions
The first question came from Bev Turner of GB News, a UK-based outlet operating in Washington. She asked about a Friday deadline for the BBC to retract and apologize for what she called “malicious edits” of President Trump in a documentary shown the previous year. Turner noted that the recently resigned BBC director general had described the organization as “the very best of society” and that a senior UK government minister had called the broadcaster “a light on the hill for people all over the world.”
Turner asked whether Trump felt the network was “taking the situation seriously,” whether this strained relations between Trump and Prime Minister Starmer, and “given that the organization is publicly funded, is the president prepared to bankrupt the BBC in his pursuit of truth and justice?”
Leavitt responded by noting Trump’s “very good relationship with Prime Minister Starmer,” referencing times when Turner herself had “questioned both leaders” during UK visits. However, she added that Trump “has always been very frank when he disagrees with leaders, even whom he has a good relationship with.”
On the BBC specifically, Leavitt stated: “The president has made it very clear that this is a leftist propaganda machine that is unfortunately subsidized by British taxpayers, and he thinks that’s extremely unfortunate for the great people of the United Kingdom and Great Britain.” The BBC operates as a public service broadcaster funded primarily through television license fees paid by UK households.
Leavitt said Trump was “deeply concerned by the editing, the purposeful and dishonest editing of his speech that was so clearly fake news.” She noted that “the president’s external legal counsel has filed a lawsuit against the BBC,” and stated: “We expect that to continue and whether they apologize or not is up to them.”
Epstein Emails Controversy
The briefing was dominated by questions about newly released emails related to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who died in federal custody in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges. House Democrats had apparently released emails that morning, and multiple reporters pressed Leavitt on their contents and implications.
Weijia asked directly: “Can you address their substance? Did the president ever spend hours at Jeffrey Epstein’s house with a victim?”
Leavitt responded emphatically: “These emails prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong.” She provided context about Trump’s connection to Epstein: “What President Trump has always said is that he was from Palm Beach and so was Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago until President Trump kicked him out because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile and he was a creep.”
Mar-a-Lago is Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Florida. Leavitt’s statement suggested that Trump ended Epstein’s membership when he learned of inappropriate behavior.
Addressing a specific email, Leavitt noted: “This email you refer to with the name of a victim that was unredacted now and has since been reported on in this room. So, I will go ahead and say it, Virginia Giuffre.” She cited CBS’s own reporting, telling Weijia: “Ms. Guthrie maintained—and God rest her soul—that she maintained that there was nothing inappropriate she ever witnessed, that President Trump was always extremely professional and friendly to her.”
Leavitt posed a pointed question to the press: “I think it’s a question worth asking the Democrat Party, and you should all go ask them after this briefing, of why they chose to redact that name of a victim who has already publicly made statements about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.”
When Mary asked why the administration didn’t simply release all the Epstein files “in the interest of transparency,” Leavitt pushed back firmly: “This administration has done more with respect to transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein than any administration ever.” She noted that “the Department of Justice has turned over tens of thousands of documents to the American people” and was “cooperating and showing support for the House Oversight Committee.”
Leavitt also explained that the Department of Justice “moved to unseal grand jury testimony, which we know, unfortunately, a judge declined those requests.” Grand jury proceedings are typically secret by law, and unsealing them requires court approval, which apparently was not granted in this case.
She framed the email release as politically motivated: “This is truly a manufactured hoax by the Democrat Party for now they’re talking about it all of a sudden because President Trump is in the Oval Office. But when Joe Biden was sitting in there, the Democrats never brought this up.” Leavitt argued this showed Democrats “actually don’t care about the victims in these cases. They care about trying to score political points against President Trump.”
Most pointedly, Leavitt stated: “It is not a coincidence that the Democrats leaked these emails to the fake news this morning, ahead of Republicans reopening the government. This is another distraction campaign by the Democrat and the liberal media and it’s why I’m being asked questions about Epstein instead of the government reopening because of Republicans and President Trump.”
When Reagan asked why White House officials were meeting with Representative Boebert “in an effort to try and get her to not sign this petition calling for the release of the files,” Leavitt reframed the question: “Doesn’t it show transparency that members of the Trump administration are willing to brief members of Congress whenever they please?” She characterized such meetings as “a defining factor of transparency, having discussions with members of Congress about various issues,” though she declined to “detail conversations that took place in the Situation Room.”
Later, when asked if President Trump was considering a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell—Epstein’s longtime associate who was convicted of sex trafficking in 2021—Leavitt stated: “He’s answered this repeatedly. It’s not something he’s talking about or even thinking about at this moment in time. I can assure you of that.”
Middle East Policy and Gaza Military Base Reports
When asked about reports in Israeli media that the U.S. was considering building a temporary military base on the Gaza border, Leavitt provided detailed context about how the story developed. She explained: “I had a conversation directly with the reporter who wrote this article. And this article was based on a single piece of paper, an inquiry that somebody in the Department of Navy made about an idea that may happen in the future, and this reporter deemed that as an official plan.”
This distinction is important in understanding how government policy actually works. Within large bureaucracies like the Department of Defense, various officials may explore ideas, conduct preliminary inquiries, or draft concept papers that never become official policy. Leavitt wanted to make clear that such an inquiry does not equal a decision.
Leavitt stated definitively: “I checked with the highest levels of the United States federal government. This is not something the United States is interested in being engaged in. It’s not something we are currently involved in right now, that we will be funding.” She added that “the president has been very clear. He doesn’t want to see boots on the ground with respect to what’s happening in the Middle East.”
She noted positive developments: “We’ve made great progress with the peace plan in Gaza, and we want to continue to see that move forward.” Leavitt used the opportunity to make a broader point about media coverage: “Sometimes we see reporters take a piece of paper like this and just deem it as official policy. And sometimes that misleads people a little bit.”
UK Intelligence Sharing and Venezuelan Drug Interdictions
A reporter asked about UK intelligence sharing regarding drug interdictions involving Venezuelan boats, specifically “how that will affect the US military operation” and noting “the high caliber of the intelligence that has been provided before any of these military actions have taken place.”
Leavitt declined to provide specifics: “We don’t comment on intelligence matters—classified intelligence matters, as you know.” However, she made clear that policy would continue: “As for the Trump administration’s position on our narco terrorist campaign in the Caribbean, it is going to continue. And the president has made it very clear he’s not going to allow terrorists to bring illegal drugs that kill American citizens into our great country.”
The reference to “narco terrorist campaign in the Caribbean” relates to operations targeting drug trafficking organizations, particularly those operating from Venezuela and transporting drugs toward the United States through Caribbean waters.
$2,000 Rebate Checks from Tariff Revenue
When asked about President Trump’s proposal to send $2,000 checks to U.S. citizens and whether Americans “should expect a $2,000 proposal,” Leavitt confirmed: “The White House is committed to making that happen, yes, and we are currently exploring all legal options to get that done.”
She acknowledged she didn’t have “a timeline or any further details,” but stated: “The president made it clear he wants to make it happen, and so his team of economic advisers are looking into it. And when we have an update, we’ll provide one.”
Later, when asked whether using tariff revenue for rebate checks would replace plans to use tariffs to reduce the national debt, Leavitt explained: “The president put out a statement on this, clarifying he wants to do both things with the tariff revenue that he’s bringing into this country. Trillions of dollars are expected to continue to pour in.”
She connected this to pending litigation: “It’s part of the reason that the Supreme Court case is so vital for our country’s future, to restore our manufacturing industry in this country, to protect our national security, to continue to allow the president to use tariffs as leverage to negotiate economic deals that are again, are good for our national security.”
Leavitt concluded: “That revenue can then be used for various reasons, to pay down our debt and also perhaps to give these rebate checks back to Americans, which, again, the White House is exploring the legal options of how we can get that done.”
SNAP Benefits and Judicial Overreach
This exchange began when Zolan noted a seeming contradiction: “You said at the top that one of the costs of the government shutdown was that people missed their SNAP benefits. Can you explain then why the administration went to court to fight the funding of food stamps and SNAP benefits?”
Leavitt provided a detailed explanation of the administration’s position. She stated: “Recipients missed their SNAP benefits because the Democrats shut the government down, and they forced the administration to tap into a contingency fund that did not even fund the full entirety of this program.”
The issue, according to Leavitt, was what happened next: “Then you had an unhinged judge who was trying to dictate from the bench what the executive branch has to pay for and where that money has to come from. That is judicial overreach at its finest.”
She explained the specific problem: “We can’t have the judicial branch telling the executive branch that we need to rob the children nutrition fund, which is what this judge was trying to do, to pay for SNAP benefits. That’s completely inappropriate and it’s unconstitutional, and we’ve been proven right with that legal argument.”
This touches on fundamental constitutional questions about separation of powers. The executive branch, headed by the president, administers federal programs and decides how to allocate available funds within legal constraints. The judicial branch interprets laws and the Constitution. Leavitt was arguing that a judge overstepped by trying to direct specifically how the administration should fund SNAP during the shutdown.
When Stephen asked why the administration needed “the judicial process for that” and whether it had “a responsibility to tap into any of those reserves to ensure that essentially poor people” received benefits, Leavitt clarified: “We did. We did tap into it. We did tap into the contingency fund. And then the judge told us, no, you have to get more money from a children’s nutrition fund, and we felt that was judicial overreach.”
She added: “You shouldn’t tell the president which fund he has to rob because the Democrats are holding the country hostage by shutting down the federal government.” With the shutdown ending, Leavitt concluded: “Thanks to Republicans and in several hours President Trump, the government is going to be reopened and SNAP recipients are going to receive their full benefits, which is what President Trump has always wanted to do.”
New York Politics: Mamdani and Schlossberg
A reporter from the New York Post asked two questions about New York politics. First, regarding Mayor-elect Mamdani, who had said he planned to reach out to President Trump and described it as a relationship that “would be critical.” Leavitt simply stated: “It’s the first time I’m hearing of it. I’ll let the president respond himself to that comment by Mr. Mamdani.”
The second question concerned Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of President Kennedy, who had announced he was running for Congress. The reporter noted that Schlossberg had previously referred to his uncle, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as “a rabid dog” and called the Trump administration “the most corrupt in American history.”
Leavitt dismissed these comments: “I don’t even think such ridiculous comments are worth responding to. Obviously, those things are not true.” She defended Secretary Kennedy: “Secretary Kennedy is doing a phenomenal job bringing transparency and the gold standard of science back to our health care system.”
The family dynamics here are notable: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the nephew of President John F. Kennedy, making him Jack Schlossberg’s uncle. The younger Kennedy has been critical of his uncle’s controversial views on vaccines and his alignment with Trump, while RFK Jr. has become a prominent member of the Trump administration as Health and Human Services Secretary.
Wall Street CEOs Dinner
When asked about President Trump hosting Wall Street CEOs for dinner that evening, Eamon requested “the names of the CEOs who are going to be here” and “a sense of what the president’s message to Wall Street’s going to be tonight.”
Leavitt didn’t provide a full list but noted: “I know you’ve reported on some names, and we’ve helped you navigate whether those names were truthful or false.” She added that “the president actually plans to bring some of you into the dinner tonight, so you’ll see for yourself in several hours.”
This suggests the administration was planning to allow press access to at least part of the dinner, which is relatively unusual for such private meetings with business leaders.
50-Year Mortgage Proposal
The reporter followed up with a question about reported White House frustration “with Bill Pulte and the rollout of his proposal for a 50 year mortgage,” asking whether the White House was “frustrated with that rollout” and whether it “still supports the idea of a 50 year mortgage for Americans.”
To understand this policy, traditional mortgages in the United States are typically 30-year or 15-year loans. A 50-year mortgage would extend the repayment period significantly, which would lower monthly payments but result in homebuyers paying much more interest over the life of the loan. Proponents argue it could make homeownership more accessible by reducing monthly costs; critics worry it would trap homeowners in decades of debt and increase overall costs.
Leavitt deflected on the reported frustration but confirmed continued interest: “This is a proposal that the president himself has commented on. I would defer you to the president’s statements. And it’s something that the administration is discussing and seriously looking into.”
Prince Andrew Testimony Request
A reporter asked whether President Trump thought “former Prince Andrew should indeed come and testify to Congress” after some Democratic members invited the British royal to testify about the Epstein scandal. Prince Andrew has been connected to Epstein and has faced accusations from Virginia Giuffre, which he has denied.
Leavitt stated: “I haven’t spoken to him about that specific matter, but I can ask him and get back to you.”
Healthcare Negotiations Post-Shutdown
A reporter asked whether President Trump intended “to invite any Democrats over to have negotiations over these subsidies or any other plan to bring down the cost of health insurance” once the government reopened.
Leavitt began by reiterating that “the Democrats were holding our country hostage to try to negotiate on a healthcare system that they created.” She was referring to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, which was passed in 2010 under President Obama with Democratic support and no Republican votes.
Leavitt stated: “Obamacare, as it’s famously called, is a system that Democrats created. It is a broken system. It has driven up healthcare costs dramatically in this country.” She found it illogical that Democrats would “shut the government down to try to fix that system they broke.”
However, she indicated openness to discussions: “Once the government reopens, the president, as he’s always maintained, is absolutely open to having conversations about healthcare, and I think you’ll see the president putting forth some really good policy proposals that Democrats should take very seriously to fix, again, the system that they broke.”
Leavitt concluded with a pointed statement: “You can’t trust the same people who broke the system to fix it, and so the American people will continue to hear from the president on this issue.”
Viktor Orban and Hungary Financial Shield
When asked about Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s statement that President Trump had promised Hungary “some kind of financial shield,” Leavitt acknowledged she didn’t have details but said: “I’m happy to check with the National Security Council and get back to you.”
Orban has been a close ally of Trump and a controversial figure in European politics, often at odds with the European Union over issues of rule of law and democratic governance. A “financial shield” could refer to various forms of economic support or protection against EU sanctions or other financial pressures.
Trump’s Walter Reed Medical Imaging
The final substantive question addressed President Trump’s recent visit to Walter Reed Medical Center. A reporter noted that Leavitt had previously said she would “check with President Trump about why he needed to get an MRI” and asked if she had “any more detail on that.”
An MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is an advanced medical imaging technique that uses powerful magnets and radio waves to create detailed images of organs and tissues inside the body. When presidents undergo medical procedures, particularly at Walter Reed—the military medical center that serves as the primary treatment facility for presidents—there is always significant public interest.
Leavitt provided clarification: “As stated in the memo provided on October 10th, President Trump received advanced imaging at Walter Reed Medical Center as part of his routine physical examination.” She emphasized that “the full results were reviewed by attending radiologists and consultants, and all agreed that President Trump remains in exceptional physical health.”
She added with a touch of humor: “Which I know all of you will see with your own eyes later this evening when he opens up his dinner to the press. And perhaps you will see him when he signs the bill to reopen the federal government.”
Works Cited
“Press Briefing: Karoline Leavitt Holds a Press Briefing at The White House – November 12, 2025.” Factba.se, Roll Call/CQ, 12 Nov. 2025, www.factba.se.