 I like the setup, so I can know what to prepare for. Go ahead. Okay. So the first quick one. This, I'll frame it as a yes, no, or maybe perhaps. I never like those questions, but go ahead. Will President Biden use the power of the bully pulpit to help cajole teachers who are unwilling to go back to schools to go back? Well, one, I'm just going to reject the premise of the question. I will say I have teachers in my family, as I'm sure many of you do. They are the first people to tell you that being teaching in the classroom and being able to engage with kids in the classroom or middle schoolers or high schoolers in the classroom, it makes their job more enjoyable, makes them more effective at what they do. The President is absolutely committed to reopening schools. He wants them not just to reopen, but to stay open. And he wants to do that in a safe way. And we're going to rely on CDC guidance, which, again, is not officially out yet, to determine the best way to do it. But there are several mitigating factors that we've seen in data to date that will help make it safe. Of course, vaccines are part of that, but so is masking. So is social distancing. So is ensuring that schools have the ventilation and the facilities that they need in order to do it safely. That's our focus. So the President's focus is on, and that's one of the reasons why he's out advocating for the American Rescue Plan. Part of that is funding so that schools can do exactly that. That sounded like a yes with an asterisk. If you are the spokesperson for the White House, you could certainly say that, but you are not. But you can ask me another question. My second quick question is, last year, OMB and the Justice Department made it so that three cities, New York, Seattle, and Portland, could be disfavored for federal grants. They were deemed, quote, anarchist jurisdictions for allegedly tolerating rise in crime. They were violent protests. Has the Biden White House decided to reverse those policies, disfavoring grants to those three cities? This is an OMB action from the Trump administration you're asking about? The Justice Department. Yes. Okay. We are a new administration. We, of course, are reviewing a range of policies and charting our own path. But I don't think I'm going to have any comments on policies from a year ago from the prior administration. The third, the third more meeting question, if I could just follow up on a quote from the President in December. He said, quote, my son, my family will not be involved in any businesses, any business, any enterprise that is in conflict with or appears to be in conflict with where there's appropriate distance from the presidency and government. Just recently there were reports that the President's son still owns a 10 percent stake in a Chinese investment firm formed with state-owned entities. Do you have an update on the divestment from that investment? He has been working to unwind his investment, but I would certainly point to, he's a private citizen, I would point you to him or his lawyers on the outside. And further on that, there was, Jake Sullivan mentioned the focus on domestic terrorism yesterday in this administration. I think a lot of people want to know, how does this administration define the term domestic terrorist? In what way? Well, it does that include ANTIFA specifically, how do you set those parameters for domestic terrorist, especially as we see a lot of focus on the January 6th, maybe not as much focused on some of the extremism and violence in the Northwest? Well, I've answered a version of this question a couple times before, but I know everybody's not in the briefing room every day. The reason we have the review, which is not a political review, but is a review done by our national security team, something tasked again to take a review of domestic violent extremism will cover incidents across the board when they have concluded that review. I'm sure they'll have more to say on it.