"This is a different moratorium," she said. "It is narrow."
"What was announced was not an extension of the existing moratorium, which was of course national. It was a more limited moratorium that was going to be impacting and helping areas that were hardest hit by COVID," Psaki explained.
PHILIP WEGMANN, REAL CLEAR POLITICS: You mentioned that the president is "old school," and Steve noted the president spent a significant amount of time in the Senate and is also a lawyer.
What is the moment the president became certain that he was on solid legal standing to move forward with this extension? And what was the specific legal argument that won out and changed his mind? Because yesterday he seemed to be weighing the two options.
JEN PSAKI, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: As I've been discussing, the justification from the legal team is that this is a different moratorium. It is narrow. It is targeted at the areas highest impacted. It is not an extension of the national moratorium that was struck down just six weeks ago.
WEGMANN: So, is the sense here that this is temporary? It is still an open question about Constitutionality --
PSAKI: It is temporary. It was extended until October 3.
WEGMANN: There is still a question of whether or not this is constitutional, but it is worth it?
PSAKI: I did not say that.
He would not have advocated for and supported moving forward with something if he was not comfortable with the legal justification.