The White House insists ‘We have been clear.’ Has it?

The Biden administration seems to have a different definition of “clear” than reporters.

As journalists go toe-to-toe with administration spokespeople, asking tough questions on national security in particular, those officials at the podiums repeatedly brush off the questions by turning to one common phrase: “We have been clear.”

But they often haven’t been clear — after all, why would the reporters be asking? Still, as this video compilation by POLITICO shows, spokespeople from the White House to the Pentagon to the State Department seem addicted to various versions of that phrase.

“‘We have been clear’ is to a Biden spox what the phrase ‘fugetaboutit’ is to Lefty from Donnie Brasco,” said Josh Rogin, a longtime Washington Post columnist who covers foreign policy, using the journalistic shorthand for spokesperson. “It’s a catchall for dodging legitimate questions about failed or failing policies.”

That small turn of phrase can have a big impact — sowing confusion among important lawmakers, or serving as a strategic obfuscation to allow for flexible policy in the future as situations change.

It’s likely part of a strategy to throw off prodding reporters, former spokespeople said.

Administration spokespeople have a set of “media tips and tricks” that include pivot lines and ways to take back the narrative when the questioning doesn’t go where they want it to go, said Hala Rharrit, a former Arab-language spokesperson in the State Department who resigned in protest over U.S. policy toward Israel in April. Insisting the administration has “been clear” is an attempt to manage a policy that may be unpopular, or at least offer flexibility so that the administration isn’t pigeonholed by specifics.

For example, the administration says it has been clear in conversations with Israel that Israel needs to limit civilian casualties, “but we actually have never taken steps to make that happen,” such as broadly withholding weapons shipments to Israel, Rharrit said.

“Saying ‘we have been clear’ is an attempt to be a show of force, pretending like we are doing something,” she added. “But in reality, it is just words.”

Another example: What exactly is President Joe Biden’s “red line” in the southern city of Rafah in Gaza, which Israel has already invaded and caused some 1 million people to flee? At what point does Israel’s military operation in the city go too far? Even Democrats have been scratching their heads.

“The president has been very clear and very direct about what our expectations are for Israeli operations in Rafah,” National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told reporters late last month.

The same day, State spokesperson Matthew Miller also told reporters, “We have made clear what our policy is with respect to Rafah. We do not want to see major military operations take place there.”

Weeks after Biden’s “red line” statement, Miller said the administration doesn’t want to see a military operation on the scale of those Israel conducted in Khan Younis or Gaza City. Those were larger operations that caused widespread destruction, but it remains unclear what action the U.S. would take if the operation in Rafah becomes comparable — or how the administration would make that assessment at all.

Also last month, the U.S. punted on whether Israel had violated international humanitarian law using U.S. weapons. Before that, there was widespread confusion over whether the U.S. had already made assessments on individual cases — which it had not — and whether Washington’s policy toward Israel would change.

“We have been very clear that we want to see Israel comply with humanitarian laws and the laws of armed conflict,” Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh told reporters last month, when asked if the U.S. is tracking possible Israeli violations of humanitarian law.

The administration has repeatedly said it wants Israel to comply with humanitarian law, but hasn’t made a determination as to whether Israel is doing so. That has allowed the U.S. to sidestep questions about exactly what types of operations are out of bounds and calls from Congress to use leverage against Israel. The U.S. has said that Israel is not allowed to use U.S.-provided weapons in a way that violates humanitarian law.

While reporters want detailed answers, the job of a spokesperson is a lot harder than it looks, said Morgan Ortagus, a former State spokesperson in the Trump administration. And the blame shouldn’t always be put on the people at the podium.

“It is challenging when you are asked to communicate a policy that is intentionally not clear,” Ortagus said. “Perhaps they're using that phrase to try and make it seem like they are being consistent.”

The White House and the State Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. DOD deferred to the White House.

Even though this administration is fairly disciplined about staying on message, it’s not the first to use the whole “clear” strategy.

In 2011, a report asked then-State spokesperson Victoria Nuland whether the Obama administration supports a bill regarding sanctions on Iran. Nuland dodged, saying the administration had been clear about the matter.

“No, in fact, you haven’t been clear,” one reporter lashed back.

Nahal Toosi contributed to this report.

A version of this story previously appeared in POLITICO'S National Security Daily newsletter.