Extensive Multi-Outlet Grilling on Biden Border Absence, Mayorkas, and 18K Daily Migrants — “He’s Working” Even Without Visiting Border

In mid-December 2022, multiple outlets grilled the White House on President Biden’s continued refusal to visit the southern border. Face the Nation’s Margaret Brennan pressed an administration official on why Biden hadn’t gone to the border during his recent Arizona trip. “Simply because people don’t see the president at the border, doesn’t mean that he’s not working,” the official said. “But why doesn’t he go to the border? He was just in Arizona. Why wasn’t it worth his time?” Brennan asked. The official deflected to logistics: “When the president travels, it’s not like you are eye-jumping on an airplane and getting off and going to our destination. Everything comes to a halt.” The exchange captured broader administration difficulties explaining Biden’s border avoidance as crossings were expected to reach 18,000 daily per California Governor Gavin Newsom. Senator Joe Manchin defended DHS Secretary Mayorkas as “very competent” who “can do a good job” if unleashed.

The Border Visit Question

Margaret Brennan of Face the Nation pressed on Biden’s border avoidance. “But why doesn’t he go to the border? He was just in Arizona. Why wasn’t it worth his time?” Brennan asked.

The question was grounded in specific facts:

Biden had visited Arizona — For the TSMC chip factory visit.

Arizona borders Mexico — Making border visits geographically convenient.

Biden hadn’t visited the border — Despite being in the state.

No prior border visits — Throughout his presidency as of this point.

Widespread political pressure — For Biden to visit.

The question essentially asked why Biden would take the time for a chip factory but not for the border on the same trip. The answer required the administration to explain the apparent prioritization of positive photo opportunities over engagement with contentious issues.

”Everything Comes to a Halt”

The administration official offered a logistics explanation. “When the president travels, it’s not like you are eye-jumping on an airplane and getting off and going to our destination. Everything comes to a halt,” the official said.

The logistics framing had some truth:

Presidential travel is complex — Security, staff, logistics all required.

Significant disruption — Of local communities during visits.

Advance planning required — For any presidential movement.

Substantial resource costs — For each trip.

But the framing didn’t answer the question. Presidential travel is always complex, but Biden had managed to travel frequently for various purposes. The question wasn’t whether presidential travel was complex — it was why Biden chose to travel to the TSMC factory but not the border during the same trip.

The official’s response essentially said “it’s too disruptive” — but Biden had already accepted the disruption for the TSMC visit. Adding a border stop would have added incremental disruption but not created the primary disruption, which was the Arizona trip itself.

”I Can’t Speak to Why He Has or Has Not Gone”

Brennan pressed for why. “Is that why he didn’t go?” she asked.

The official’s response was revealing. “Well, I can’t speak to why he has or has not gone. I’m just speaking to the fact that it’s a bit more disruptive for the president of the United States to travel than you or I,” the official said.

The admission — “I can’t speak to why he has or has not gone” — was significant. An administration official couldn’t (or wouldn’t) explain the president’s travel decisions on a major issue. This suggested either:

No good reason existed — That the official could share publicly.

The decision was Biden’s personal preference — That couldn’t be explained.

Political calculation dominated — That officials couldn’t admit.

Information wasn’t shared — Between Biden and this official.

Whatever the reason, the inability to explain Biden’s border avoidance was a communications failure that couldn’t be papered over with logistics talk.

”Continue to Lean In”

The official pivoted to claims of engagement. “What the president has done is continue to lean in on this immigration issue,” the official said.

The “lean in” framing was vague:

No specifics about actions — What “leaning in” meant.

No personal engagement — Like a border visit.

No direct communications — With border communities.

Just general claim — Of engagement.

This was standard administration framing on issues where presidential personal engagement was limited. “Leaning in” conveyed activity without requiring specific evidence.

The LAPD Sweeps Question

The transcript then shifts to a different topic — LAPD sweeps of homeless encampments. A different speaker addresses this. “Are you still going to allow LAPD and sanitation officers to do these sweeps of encampments?” a reporter asked.

The respondent (apparently a different official) denied this was a sweep. “No, these are not sweeps at all. This is getting people to move on their own. But then after the person leaves, sanitation is absolutely going to have to be there,” they said.

This was a separate issue but appeared in the same briefing compilation — showing that border topics weren’t the only pressing concerns.

Manchin on Mayorkas

The transcript includes Senator Joe Manchin’s comments defending DHS Secretary Mayorkas. “When you are about to face a Republican-controlled house that’s vowed to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary… Well, first of all, it’s an unfair charge against Al-Imamorkas. I think the gentleman is very competent. He can do a good job. They just need to unleash him. Let him do his job,” Manchin said.

“Al-Imamorkas” was a transcription error — Manchin was referring to Alejandro Mayorkas. Manchin’s defense was notable:

“Very competent” — Direct endorsement.

“Can do a good job” — Capability claim.

“Unleash him” — Suggesting restrictions existed.

“Let him do his job” — Implying he was being constrained.

The “unleash him” framing was interesting. Manchin was suggesting that Mayorkas was constrained in some way — possibly by administration priorities, legal constraints, or resource limitations. The implication was that if Mayorkas had more authority, he could do better work.

The 18,000 Migrants Figure

The transcript references California Governor Gavin Newsom’s predictions. “Given what Gavin Newsom has said for these first couple of weeks, when they do expect 18,000 people a day crossing the southern border,” the interviewer said.

18,000 daily crossings was an alarming figure. For context:

Pre-Title 42 baseline — About 7,000-10,000 daily.

Title 42 era — About 7,500 daily on average.

Newsom’s prediction — 18,000+ daily post-Title-42.

Historical records — Would be shattered.

Operational capacity — Insufficient for such volumes.

Newsom’s warning as a Democratic governor was significant. He wasn’t a Republican making political points — he was a California governor expressing genuine concern about post-Title-42 migration flows. His prediction deserved serious administration engagement.

”Every Effort to Maintain Safety”

The administration response to the 18,000 projection was general. “We will, I’m sure, see the departments and agencies make every effort to maintain the safety, the orderliness, the fairness of people seeking asylum or having other determinations that are coming for other reasons,” the official said.

“Every effort” was the familiar generic framing. It committed to effort without committing to outcomes. Regardless of actual capacity to handle 18,000 daily crossings, the administration would make “every effort.” This framing preserved the administration from accountability if the effort proved insufficient.

The Newsom-Reporter Pattern

The reporter then explicitly cited Newsom. “I think, as you said, your own Governor Gavin Newsom told ABC News that the immigration system will break when Title 42 is lifted. He said your state is not prepared that sites are already at capacity,” the reporter said.

The “your own Governor” framing was pointed. A fellow Democrat — not a Republican critic — was predicting system failure. The administration couldn’t dismiss this as partisan attack. Newsom’s warnings required substantive response.

But the substantive response didn’t come. The transcript captures fragmented replies suggesting the discussion was chaotic rather than informative.

”Reinvigoration of America”

One speaker offered a positive immigration framing. “I do like talking about immigration, though, because it is the constant reinvigoration of America,” the speaker said.

This was presumably an administration official or supportive commentator. The framing was:

Positive view — Immigration as beneficial.

Traditional narrative — America as immigrant nation.

Values-based — Moral framing.

Counter to crisis framing — Emphasizing positive aspects.

While this framing had substantive merits as a long-term perspective, it didn’t address specific operational concerns about Title 42’s end. Noting immigration’s long-term benefits wasn’t responsive to questions about short-term capacity challenges.

The Six-Point Plan Reference Again

KJP’s familiar references appeared again in the transcript. “Secretary Mayakis was very clear about that. He laid out their six-point plan when he was at the border just a couple of days ago,” the administration official said.

This was the now-familiar six-point plan reference. Throughout the briefings compiled in this transcript, the six-point plan was mentioned without detailed explanation. The plan existed as a rhetorical resource rather than as detailed operational content.

The “Since Day One” Framing

The transcript includes multiple “since day one” references. “We’re doing the work. We’re going to do this in a safe and humane way,” KJP said in one segment. “On day one, the President put forth a comprehensive reform plan,” she said in another.

The “since day one” framing was consistent across briefings:

Political messaging priority — Same framing everywhere.

Comfortable talking point — Used regardless of question.

Deflection resource — Available for any immigration question.

Credit claim — For long-term engagement.

”We Need Congress to Act”

The “Congress must act” framing also appeared multiple times. “We also need Congress to act. It is important that they deliver the resources we requested for the border security and management. They need to pass the comprehensive immigration reform that we have put forth,” KJP said.

The Congress-must-act framing served the same purpose as the day-one framing. It shifted responsibility to a body unlikely to act, preserving administration claims of engagement while explaining lack of results.

The Asylum Policy Rumors

A reporter raised specific policy rumors. “There’s been some reporting out there that the administration is considering changes to the asylum policy, potentially making it so that someone can only apply for asylum if they’ve already been denied for another country like Mexico. Is that true?” the reporter asked.

KJP deflected. “So look, I know there’s a lot of rumors out there about that, a lot of speculation. I don’t have anything to announce at this time or from here at this time,” KJP said.

This was another familiar deflection. The “no announcement” framing avoided confirming or denying the specific policy change. It preserved administration flexibility while not informing the public about potential major policy shifts.

The reported policy change was subsequently implemented in various forms through 2023. At the time of this briefing, it was being considered but not confirmed. The deflection kept the public uninformed about administration planning even as the planning continued.

Key Takeaways

• Multiple outlets including Face the Nation’s Margaret Brennan grilled the White House on Biden’s continued refusal to visit the southern border during his Arizona trip.
• Administration officials couldn’t explain Biden’s specific choice to visit a TSMC factory but not the border on the same trip.
• Senator Joe Manchin defended DHS Secretary Mayorkas as “very competent” and said he could “do a good job” if “unleashed.”
• California Governor Gavin Newsom had predicted 18,000 daily border crossings once Title 42 ended — a warning the administration couldn’t fully address.
• KJP repeatedly pivoted to familiar framings: “done the work since day one,” “need Congress to act,” Republican “political stunts,” and references to the DHS six-point plan.
• Reporters pressed on specific asylum policy changes under consideration, but KJP declined to confirm or deny reported plans.

Transcript Highlights

The following is transcribed from the video audio (unverified — AI-generated from audio).

• Simply because people don’t see the president at the border, doesn’t mean that he’s not working.
• But why doesn’t he go to the border? He was just in Arizona. Why wasn’t it worth his time?
• When the president travels… everything comes to a halt.
• Well, first of all, it’s an unfair charge against Al-Imamorkas [Mayorkas]. I think the gentleman is very competent.
• Gavin Newsom has said for these first couple of weeks, when they do expect 18,000 people a day crossing the southern border.
• We have an intensive all-of-government effort underway to prepare.

Full transcript: 1526 words transcribed via Whisper AI.