All right, everybody. We've got an

incredible guest today. Governor Josh

Shapiro is here. Obviously governor of

Pennsylvania. He's got

uh record-setting popularity in

Pennsylvania right now. 60% approval, at

least. He's a moderate. Uh he's focused

on getting done, GSD. He's tough on

crime. Ranked number one, according to

my notes, on charging Medicaid fraud.

He's pro data center. He's got a nuanced

take on Israel. And he's a baller,

apparently. Cuts the table.

Got him.

Very nice.

>> god.

>> There's your governor.

>> Look at those short shorts. Holy cow.

>> Got him. Wow. It's the late '80s.

>> Man, based on the VHS tape, this looks

like the '80s.

>> Yeah, that was 1990, I think.

>> Look at that, playing the point.

>> There you go.

>> Very nice. Very nice. All right.

>> That was back when That was back when

people shot mid-range jumpers. They

don't do that anymore, man. They don't

do that. They should.

>> All threes. Yeah, I mean, we have a

couple of players and and we were

talking before the show started. You're

a obviously a big Philly fan and I'm a

big Knicks fan, so I will see you at the

games. We're We're on a collision

course.

>> I, by the way, with all due respect, and

I hope we have a good conversation here.

I hope to never see you at the games.

Cuz if you're showing up in Philly with

all your Knicks crap on, I'm not going

to be a happy guy.

>> Oh, look at a selfie courtside

with my friend

Dave, who is one of the co-owners of the

team, who's a mutual friend of ours. Um

who I think egged you on a little bit to

come on the program here.

>> He did.

He should go on All In. They have

thoughtful conversations and anxious to

have one with you. So, thanks for having

me.

>> Yeah. There's so much for us to talk

about, but I I thought I would start

with

your track record in Pennsylvania. And

the reason I wanted to start there is

because there's a bit of a collision

course happening right now between you

and Gavin. Gavin's got what I would

describe as a variable um tenure here in

California. Um I left California for

Texas cuz I just thought it was a bit of

a disaster, but you're doing great in

your state and

that's in the face of New York, my

hometown, New Jersey, Boston, like

losing a lot of business leaders.

And you've been scoring, you know, some

big wins. So, when you look at your

track record, maybe you could just

educate the audience on what you've

gotten done and maybe in comparison to

what's happening in those other states

with other democratic leaders cuz you

seem to be

maybe the exception to this rule that

Democrats aren't getting it done on a

business level.

>> Look, I'm proud of what we've done. I'm

not in comparison with Gavin or any

other democratic governor. I'll just

talk about what we've done here in

Pennsylvania. We are a pro-growth state.

We want businesses to come here and

grow. I'm proud of the fact that we've

created more jobs in all but two states

in the entire country. We've cut taxes

seven different times to be more

competitive, cut taxes for small

businesses, also for families trying to

afford child care, for seniors, for

working Pennsylvanians. We've taken our

permitting process, that's the usually

the ticket you need say to build your

building, right? If you're trying to

build something here in Pennsylvania, we

were bottom five in the country. I think

we're now a national model, easily top

five in terms of speed. We've got a

money-back guarantee on all of our

permits. If we don't get you your permit

in time, we'll give you your money back.

And fun fact, we did issue 40 million

permits during my time as governor.

We've only had to issue five refunds,

meaning only five of those permits were

late. We are now the only growing

economy in the northeastern part of the

United States. At the same time, we're

investing in workforce development,

especially if you don't have a college

degree, tripling funding for Vo-Tech and

apprenticeship programs, and

understanding the need to take the

workforce we have today and prepare them

for um jobs here in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. I'm proud that we've got

an unemployment rate below the national

rate consistently over the last 32

months. I think it is really critical

that every kid born in Pennsylvania gets

a great quality education, that that kid

has a safe street to walk down to get to

school or wherever else they're going,

and that they've got a job in the

community that they love. Those to me

are the core foundational principles.

It's what we focus on every single day.

Our mantra, as you said at the top, is

GSD, get done. Those are the areas

where we focus on getting done, and

I think we're putting a lot of points on

the board every single day that's having

a meaningful difference in people's

lives.

>> How are you getting that done? Let's

just take the permitting as an example.

Why is it so dysfunctional in

California? You know, obviously I'm an

investor in technology companies, and we

just saw red tape after red tape, then

on housing.

It's incredibly hard to build anything.

The NIMBYism, you know, if you cast a

shadow, nothing can be built, and then

housing prices keep going up. And you

know, if you want to hire a nanny or a

teacher,

or you know, if a firefighter moves in,

they can't even afford a home in the

community that they're servicing. So,

how did you fix this?

And why can't other states not fix it?

>> I mean, look, I I can't speak to how

it's done in California. I'll just tell

you in Pennsylvania, the way we start

the conversation is by recognizing

permits are critically important to

economic development and to creating

jobs, right? If we, the government, can

move at the speed of business, if I can

give you as a CEO predictability to know

your business is going to be open in 6

months instead of 3 years, right?

Because the permit took too long, then

you're going to want to invest here. So,

we sort of start with the important idea

that permits matter. Second, when you

come into our state government to get

your permit, let's just use a building

as an example, right? We want to get to

yes. We still want to protect the

environment and public health and public

safety, and we do that, but we want to

get to yes. So, our attitude has

shifted.

Third, we've got to have that money-back

guarantee cuz that money-back guarantee

holds the bureaucracy accountable. Now,

I will tell you that some of this we've

done administratively, meaning I've

signed executive orders and we've made

those changes. But, in other things,

we've worked with the legislature to

pass new laws to speed up our

permitting. And it hasn't always been

easy. Understand, I'm a Democrat as

governor. I've got a divided

legislature. I was the only governor for

a while with a divided legislature, now

there's one other. I've got a Senate led

by Republicans by just two seats and a

house led by Democrats by just one seat.

But, this is an area where I've been

able to bring Democrats and Republicans

together in order to make progress in

terms of passing this this permitting

reform. And again,

proof is in the pudding. What we are

seeing is that businesses are coming

here and the economy's growing. Let me

give you one more example. This may seem

really small to you, but it's a big

deal, okay? When I talk about a permit,

if you want to be a barber in

Pennsylvania, you need a permit or

technically it's called a license, but I

put it all in one

>> Yeah, some kind of certificate, yeah.

>> Right. The day I took office, it took 20

days for a barber to get their permit to

be able to go out and cut hair. Today,

you get it same day. You get it within

that day. That may seem silly to you,

but but it but I just I called my

barber. I asked him, he said, "How many

heads do you cut a day?" He said, "About

10 a day." At 20 bucks a pop, 200 bucks

a day for two for 20 days. That's real

money. That's thousands of dollars that

we're putting into that barber's pocket

just because we got them their permit

more quickly. So, I know it may sound

nerdy, it may sound wonky, but whether

you're building some big building that's

going to house hundreds of workers or

thousands of people who are living

there. Or whether you're the local

barber that everybody needs to go to to

get to get their haircut. This stuff

matters. And the quicker you are, the

more jobs you create and the more money

you put in people's pockets.

>> It also matters, I think, on a

philosophical basis of who is the

government working for? Themselves and

their timelines or for the people who

put them in office? And I think that's

the philosophy just at least watching it

happen in New York and California is the

opposite of what you described. There's

no sense of urgency and there's

almost a situation where people believe

it's intractable, that they can't change

it. And so

that's I think such an important point

is that you actually made it happen.

>> I think that's a great point. I want to

focus on what you just said there. Um

first off, I I start the conversation

believing the government can be a force

for good in people's lives. Second, that

we got to figure out a way to get to

yes. Whether it's building the building

or whether it's getting that mom the

support she needs for her kid with

autism who needs support. We got to

figure out a way to get to yes and get

them um that help. And then you

mentioned uh in your question the way

people get I I I don't recall if you

used the word frustrated or or they

feel, you know, um that that

government's sort of holding them back,

right? Not trying to work with them.

>> in a way, right? It's just if you have

that experience three or four times,

whether it's at the airport or getting

your driver's license or getting the

hair cutting you know, certificate. Like

it's just oppressive over time. You just

feel like the government's working

against you.

>> Yeah, and what does that what does that

person feel after they try and get their

permit, they can't get it. They try and

open up their small business, it won't

work. They get frustrated. By the way,

they get pissed. And then not only are

they pissed at that agency or that

governor or they're pissed at, you know,

that state government. They also grow,

and this is an important point, a little

more cynical about government and a

little bit more frustrated about the

process. And when that happens, I think

that that creates more distrust in our

system and it creates more opportunity

for I think frankly dark voices on

extremes to come in and take advantage

of people. I I I find that, you know, if

we get it done the right way, if we

process things quickly, if we get people

to yes, then maybe a byproduct of that

is a little bit less cynicism in our

system.

>> Yeah, and and the horseshoe theory that

you're kind of referencing there, these

two extremes just taking over the

conversation,

that's not what the majority of the

country wants. They they want to just

live in a high-functioning society. I

was curious how you look at fraud, um,

waste, fraud, and abuse. My friend Elon,

to drop a name, you know, did this doge

thing, was a little controversial, but I

think what we've seen is, hey, 20-30% of

every tax dollar collected is wasted.

Some of it's fraud, some of it's just

incompetence. It could be anything on

that spectrum. And this seems to be the

Republican Party's rallying cry to beat

the Democrats going into California, and

prosecuting people, Michigan, etc. You

have seem to have gotten ahead of this.

You've been doing this for years. So,

maybe you could explain your take on

fighting fraud specifically, health

care, or in other areas.

>> Yeah. Look Look, I think we've got to

focus on rooting fraud out of the

system. Now, you and I may differ on,

hey, should we spend a dollar on that

initiative or not? And by the way, those

are super healthy differences, and we

should argue that out. We should debate

that. But where we should have no

difference is if someone's stealing that

dollar instead of going to its intended

purpose, we should be against that. And

and I am. Prior to serving as governor

and having the privilege of sitting

here, uh, in this office serving the

good people of Pennsylvania, I was the

state's attorney general. And you'll

remember back during COVID, there were

those PPP loans to help our small

businesses and other businesses stay

afloat. We'd probably agree like good

idea, right? We got to keep businesses

afloat.

But during that time I went out and

prosecuted a whole bunch of people for

stealing that PPP money, for not using

it for its intended purposes. Here as

governor, I've maintained a similar

focus through my office of Inspector

General, rooting out fraud through

making sure by the way, we're not

fronting you money when you're going out

and providing say human services. You

have to submit for reimbursements and

you've got to make sure you prove that

you did that work. When we find that

someone took advantage of the system,

we're referring them to prosecutors. I'm

proud of the fact that we've had more

Medicaid fraud prosecutions in

Pennsylvania than I think any other

state. Maybe there was one other. We're

we're certainly toward the top of that

list. Proud of the fact that we've

identified that, we've sent it to

prosecutors and and we've addressed it.

If we can address it administratively,

we do. If not, we understand that those

things need to be prosecuted. We should

have a zero tolerance policy for that.

We should make sure that if we're going

to utilize a hard-earned dollar of a

taxpayer for a purpose like providing

someone with health care that they need,

we got to make sure that that dollar

makes its way to that person so they get

their health care. And you know, our

folks are working really hard on that in

Pennsylvania.

>> So pro-business,

uh less regulation, lowering taxes,

eliminating fraud, um and all of this is

just getting done in the state. And then

you know, the next piece that in at

least my community, people who are

creators of businesses, venture

capitalists, angel investors, founders,

we pay our taxes, pay a lot of taxes uh

depending on which state you live in.

And then there's this movement

>> paying more taxes in Pennsylvania, man.

Stop paying them elsewhere.

>> Yeah. It well, the and you know, we then

get struck with this California law and

a lot of my friends have moved to Austin

where I live now. They just said

suddenly, hey, we want to seize 5% of

whatever you got. You already paid your

taxes, you haven't paid capital gains on

some of this equity you own in your

company. Maybe it's paper wealth, maybe

it's your company went public now and

you could sell some of it, but you might

crater the stock if you do. And

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders,

and California all trying to seize

assets. And this has really hit the

creator

the business creators in a in a really

offensive way

to the point at which they're moving.

We lost California lost Sergey, Travis

from Uber just fleeing fleeing en masse

in the last 12 months. Do you believe in

these wealth taxes and do you believe in

seizing people's assets on gains they've

never received? It's It seems to be

getting momentum.

>> I mean, I'll just tell you we've cut

taxes seven times in Pennsylvania. We've

got one of the lowest income taxes in

the entire country. It's why I'm joking

with you you should come to Pennsylvania

and

locate here.

And And look, I mean, that kind of tax

that you're describing is not something

we have here. It's certainly not

something

on on my agenda. I do think people need

to pay their fair share. I think you'd

agree with that. We need to make sure

that we are easing the burden on those

who are working and who are at the

lowest, you know, sort of economic point

on the scale. And we got to make sure

that folks at the top are paying their

their fair share

in order to to sustain our society. And

I think we've struck a a really good

balance here in Pennsylvania. And I

think our growth numbers

bear that out. I think seeing more

people coming to the state bears that

out. And I think there's an important

stat, one of the things you you cited in

those

entrepreneurs as as you were going

through your question is

you know, these are people who kind of

started with a dream, with an idea that,

you know, someone might have looked at

and said, "Geez, I I don't know about

that." But they stuck with it and and

they built up their companies. We see

here in Pennsylvania, particularly when

it comes to life sciences, right? We're

seeing people plant a flag here in

Pennsylvania, start with an idea that

others might think, "Boy, I I don't know

about that." But then because of our tax

environment in Pennsylvania, because of

our pro-growth approach in Pennsylvania,

we're seeing more of those small

businesses, more of those small

companies, especially in life sciences,

survive that sort of valley where a lot

of those companies go out of business

and sustain themselves here because

again, I think we're showing that we're

pro-growth, we've got a smart tax

environment for them. And by the way,

after we invest in them, after we give

them a shot, and after they do well, we

expect them to pay their fair share back

to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And

I think that's that's the approach we've

taken and it's working.

>> Yeah, and so if you're not in favor of a

wealth tax, what would you do to deal

with maybe this disparity in

wealth that we're seeing? There was just

some statistics that came out the other

day, I'm sure you saw them. The upper

middle class has just been surging,

middle class going down a bit, and

people in the lower wrongs going down as

well. So,

people may feel like they're not making

enough money, but in reality what's

happening is people feel other people

have made a tremendous amount of money,

which is true because of equity holdings

are growing much better than salaries

ever will, and only 40% only 50% of the

country really participates in a

meaningful way in equities. The other

40-50% don't have any exposure to that.

So, how would you deal with somebody

making, you know, a hundred billion

dollars, five hundred billion dollars, a

trillion dollars, and never selling

their equity, or maybe not selling it

for 20 years? How do you think about

that?

>> make sure three points, a Pennsylvania

point and a couple broader points. One,

you cannot have a national economy that

works if it's only working for the 1%.

And you pointed out in your question the

wage disparity and the disparity of

income. You have to make sure that there

is opportunity for those at all

different income levels. And look, as we

sit here today, if you're making a

million dollars

versus $50,000, you make a million

dollars, you're going to be able to buy

some stuff that someone at $50,000 can't

buy, right? We sort of understand that,

but you got to have opportunity and

you've got to have a level playing

field. You got to have a fair shot and

you got to have a tax system that works

in a fair way. So, that's sort of point

one. Point two is here in Pennsylvania,

we've tried to address some of that

economic disparity by passing the first

ever working Pennsylvanians tax credit,

sort of a state-side earned income tax

credit. So, what we're saying is if

you're working, if you're going out and

busting your hump, we're going to put

some money back in your pocket. About

940,000, almost a million Pennsylvanians

are going to qualify for a little over

800 bucks back in their pockets. So,

that's going to help not only today with

rising costs due to a lot of these

federal policies, but it's going to put

money back in people's pockets, allow

them to make, you know, the the the

investments they need to make in their

everyday lives. Here's the third point.

What I would not do cuz you asked what I

would do. What I would not do is what

President Trump did at the federal level

with an aid and assist from a whole

bunch of sycophants in Congress by

passing that budget bill or the

beautiful budget bill or whatever the

hell they call it. In effect, what they

did was they gave a tax cut for those

who simply do not need it, right? And by

the way, you know, in the palace of

truth and justice, you talk to those

folks. They know that they didn't need

that tax cut. And what happens as a

result of that is I've got

500,000

Pennsylvanians who are going to lose

their health care. I've got 120,000 who

have already lost their health care.

About another 320,000

or so were likely to lose Medicaid next

year. I've got 26 rural hospitals that

are likely to shutter because these are

rural hospitals that are working at an

operating deficit and they're relying so

much on Medicaid which has been slashed

by the federal government. So, the idea

that Donald Trump thought it was smart

economic policy to give a tax cut to

those who don't need it and pay for it

with those who are struggling where and

create even greater economic

disparities, that is going to hold back

our entire economy. Just take those

500,000 people who aren't going to have

health care. You're paying for that and

I'm paying for that with our private

insurance. So, what Donald Trump has

done is shifted that burden onto those

who are struggling, making it harder for

them, adding additional cost to the

middle class. And I think that that is

that that lacks

um frankly, it's just dumb economic

policy. And I think it's going to set us

back.

>> Here we are. Politics is on the table.

Incredible track record you have, but

let's dive into the Democratic Party. Uh

I'm an independent, but grew up Irish

Catholic in Brooklyn, so grew up a

Democrat. Probably have voted you know,

60/40 Democrat to Republican, but always

for a moderate, somebody who can get

stuff done. That's why I find you quite

appealing. But, let's talk about the

Democratic Party

and the shellacking they got

in the last election.

And specifically, what really troubled

me,

Biden didn't look like he was all there

and uh I think we've all come to some

consensus that he probably should have

dropped out earlier.

But, what was really disheartening to me

was that they didn't do the speed run

primary. They didn't do, you know, a

capsule primary over that July-August

period and gave you a shot and other

people a shot, Pritzker, Pete whoever to

to compete for the nomination. Was that

a huge mistake for the Democratic Party?

And then when you look back on it, do

you think that might have cost you all

the election?

>> Well, look. I mean, I actually wrote

about this in in the book I I recently

published where, you know, it it became

clear to me that

you know, Joe Biden seeking another term

was probably not in the best interest of

the party or or the country. And I spoke

to him directly about that and and

bluntly about that. Once he made the

decision to drop out with a hundred and

whatever days to go, you know, there

there were not many opportunities, I

think, to have the kind of primary

process that you're talking about. I

think it is important to look forward,

right? And not look backwards. And you

said in the last election Democrats took

a shellacking. Actually, if you look at

2025, it was the opposite. I mean, the

president's party, the Republican Party,

got beat in New Jersey, got beat in

Virginia, got beat here in Pennsylvania

where we won three state Supreme Court

seats. So, obviously, there's a pendulum

in in American politics. And it's

clearly

swinging back. I think what's important

is is that we look forward. And yeah, I

think it's also really important for our

party to have for my party to have a

real debate and to have a real

discussion about ideas. What are we for?

And what are we willing to fight for?

And I realize that process may at times

look a little messy. I realize and I

mean this with the utmost respect. It

gives folks like you on a podcast or on

a show the ability to sort of pick

apart, maybe try and, you know, sort of

parse words or point one Democrat at

another and try and create conflict. But

I would just say that overall, having

this debate and having these issues

being raised and having disagreements,

that's healthy for our party. And

ultimately, I think our party's poised

to take back power. And that will make

us better at governing. To me, the whole

purpose of running in an election is

getting the chance to govern, not just

winning the election. And so, having

these debates right now puts us in a

better position when we win those

elections. And I'm running for

re-election right now in Pennsylvania.

Going to work my ass off to win another

term and earn the support of the people

of Pennsylvania again. And I want to

continue to deliver, continue to

um you know, focus on these issues that

matter most. And having that debate, I

think is really healthy.

>> I understand looking forward is most

important, but I got I got to go one

more time in the rearview mirror here,

which is Kamala Harris was picked

because Biden had put out a criteria,

"Hey, I want to have a woman of color as

my vice president." He was very explicit

about that. She could be qualified,

unqualified, you know, moderately

qualified. But then when she went out to

pick her VP, everybody was saying, "Hey,

Josh Shapiro should be really in that

running." And she didn't pick you

specifically cuz she didn't think she

could win with the Jewish vice

president.

>> Yeah,

>> So,

>> I don't respectfully I I got to push

back on that. And again, I I've been

very very open about this. Yeah.

>> Let's do it.

>> Yeah, and and I respectfully I'm not

looking to, you know, be argumentative

with you, but I I

>> Be candid. Yeah.

>> I was very very detailed and and and

very specific in my book about this

process. And I was very grateful to the

vice president for being considered. And

grateful to her for the candid dialogue

we had. And about 48 hours before she

picked Tim Walz, I pulled out and made

clear that that was not something I was

interested in doing. I thought I could

serve the good people of Pennsylvania um

and and do my best serving here as

governor in a job that I absolutely

love. So, this wasn't about her not

picking me because of my faith. Uh this

was about me um in the end not being

interested in in that job.

>> Really?

Sincerely, yes. Uh cuz it did seem like

you wanted to to be considered for that

VP position.

>> I called Sunday evening after she and I

met and had a really candid conversation

uh to inform her that I did not want to

be considered. I thought she had some

really good people to choose from.

>> All right. So, let's move forward then

looking at winning. You're going to run

for governor again. Assume that's going

to be a shoe-in.

You know, you got to do the work, but

it's pretty clear you're going to

>> your your confidence there, my man.

>> Yeah, no, it's it's clear. But let's

talk a little bit about if you were to

run for president, which people seem to

think you've got a really good shot.

But you're below maybe national

recognition right now. You're a little

bit far behind. Gavin has come out,

"Hey, I'm running. I'm running. Here I

am." He's obviously in the pole position

for now. I want to understand the

Democratic Party and how they should

proceed because just like the right

seemed to separate and you had this mega

coalition

and you had, you know, the traditional

Republicans who were just aghast at

Trump and his style and his behavior,

etc.

Now that seems to have fractured again.

You have America first, America only.

All the supporters who were supporting

Trump now have

come out vocally against him because of

the war in Iran. And then you have on

your side the socialist Democrat

movement, which I think a lot of

moderates are like, "Well, that's

confusing. We don't want to have

more Mondamis." And that doesn't seem

super appealing to a lot of moderates.

And the moderates are the ones who

flipped this election and they went the

last election, they went with Trump

largely as opposed to going with Kamala.

So

handicap for me,

what has to happen in the Democratic

Party to win in 2028?

>> I understand what you're asking and I I

will answer your question. I don't think

anyone should be looking past these

midterms. And while I appreciate the

confidence you you have in me and and

and maybe in the the broader dynamics

here, I think we need to have a national

referendum in these midterms on what

people see happening in Washington, D.C.

The the chaos and the corruption that

exists there. I think people need to

show up in record numbers and vote their

concerns. Since I'm not looking past the

midterms, I do think it is important

that we acknowledge Donald Trump has

injected chaos and corruption into

everything he touched. And I think it's

important for me, for other Democratic

leaders in this country, to be able to

show what calm, competent governance can

actually deliver for people. That's what

I'm going to be talking about in these

midterms as I seek re-election. I think

it is important to paint an alternative

picture to the chaos Donald Trump has

created. One where you can actually grow

the economy. You can make our

communities safer. We didn't talk about

this yet, but we've hired 2,000 more

police officers, invested in community

violence prevention, and violent crime

is down 12%. Fatal gun violence is down

42% in our Commonwealth. Um we've

invested in public education, and by the

way, scores are up, truancy is down. Um

we're moving up on the list. We're about

10th um according to Consumer Affairs in

the quality of public education. I think

we've got to show that there is an

alternative to Donald Trump's chaos, to

his cruelty, to his corruption. And

you're seeing that, um I think certainly

in my state. I think you're seeing it in

other states as well. And we need to

paint that alternative picture.

>> So, 2026 is certainly going to be a

referendum on the first 2 years of this

presidency,

which was extremely popular for the

first 9 months or so. People felt really

good about the economy.

>> Some people.

>> And that Well, I think the his polling

was great. But there was this tinge, I

think it's pretty accurate to say, the

tariffs felt like those were chaotic.

>> Yeah.

>> Then you get the ICE situation. That

feels very chaotic. Then you go to this

war with Iran, and that feels like a

peak chaotic moment that we're in here

in week six of this. So, it's certainly

going to be a referendum on Trump, and

it feels like all the Democrats have to

do is sit back and say like, "Look,

is this what you want? Gas prices up,

inflation." But you're saying they have

to paint another picture. Paint that

picture for me. What is that picture?

>> I think

on both sides of what you just said,

Donald Trump chose to push the tariff

button, right?

>> Yeah.

>> And as a result, here in Pennsylvania,

what we're seeing is coffee prices are

up 30%. Beef is up 19%. OJ, orange

juice, is up 9%. The fertilizers my

farmers rely on here in Pennsylvania up

36%.

So, we're seeing whether you're a

farmer, whether you're, you know, a dad

just trying to cook dinner for his kids,

whatever the case may be, everything

costs more because of the the

recklessness and the chaotic approach

Donald Trump's taking on our economy

with these tariffs. Obviously, this war

has spiked gas prices. Up today about

415, 416 here in Pennsylvania, similar

across the country. Probably years

before those gas prices come down even

if the war, you know, hopefully ends,

you know, very very soon. And so, I

think it is important, yes, to point

that out the way Donald Trump's policies

have hurt the American people, have hurt

our farmers, have hurt our small

businesses. The point I was making a

moment ago is I think that's part of the

conversation. The other part of the

conversation is, "Okay, well, what are

you doing to make people's lives

better?"

>> Yeah, well, so what what should the top

three things be? Like, if you were

running the Democratic Party and you and

everybody got in a room and said, "You

know what? We really are going to take

winning seriously, not get into this

like purity test for everybody in the

party, and you know, everybody's got to

be perfect, and Joe Rogan's not good

enough to go on air with because he's a

lifelong Democrat, but he said something

about COVID we don't agree with.

Therefore, he's out of the party. Elon

Musk is a little bit weird on the Well,

but but the Democrats did. And then, oh,

Elon Musk waited hours to and and had

Obama at SpaceX and then all of a sudden

he can't come to the White House for the

EV Summit, the category he created. Like

it's pretty obvious the Democratic Party

had some real dysfunction in there in

terms of building a bigger tent. And I

can tell you I have never felt

more courted in my life

than the Republican Party trying to get

me to be part of the the Trump movement,

which I demurred and declined. It wasn't

my style. But they are trying to build

the biggest tent possible. They're like,

"Oh, you agree with 14% of what we do?

You're in."

>> Okay.

>> Yeah, so walk me through what the top

thing should be. Yeah.

>> Let's dissect. First off, you attributed

a number of things to Democrats that I

didn't say. So, um we're you're here

interviewing me, so let's focus on the

things I say. Number two, um they went

and they courted you

uh and you demurred, but by the way, um

even had you not demurred, had you

signed up, I don't know that your life

would be better off after a year and a

half of Trump's policies. What I am for

here in Pennsylvania, the ultimate swing

state, the toughest state to win in, an

incredibly tough state to govern in,

particularly with a divided legislature,

I'm for investing in public education,

giving every child of God an

opportunity. I'm for safe communities,

and we're building that here, and we're

reducing crime in all of our

communities. I'm for a pro-growth

economy, where we generate more energy,

we generate more jobs, where we create

more opportunities, particularly in our

rural communities and forgotten

communities that have been too often

left behind. And here's the fourth thing

I'm for. I am for freedom. And I'll tell

you what, this president represents a

party that used to be known as the party

of freedom, and now they have turned

their backs on that. They want to tell

my kids what books they're allowed to

read, they want to tell women what

medicines they can take and what they

can do with their bodies, they want to

control the way I raise my child. They

want to say,

uh, you know, every day that, yeah, you

can vote, but we're going to set the

rules and try and rig them in a way

where you're not going to be successful.

They are not the party of freedom. And I

think the Democratic Party has an

opportunity to be the party of

education, safety, economic opportunity,

and freedom. That's what we're doing

here in Pennsylvania, and that's what

I'm going to continue to put forth.

>> I think it's a great platform. I would

add to it housing.

The thing I hear about from young people

all the time is that, you know, just

I'll never be able to afford a house.

The American dream's a bit of a scam,

and college is overpriced. So, how do

you think about housing? And And what do

you Is that an issue in in your state?

Or

>> talk about housing. Let's also talk

about college, cuz you raised both of

them in your question. And

>> And look, I mean, that has disinfected,

by the way, just like two generations

who are like, you guys tricked us on

housing. You told us we'd be able to get

home, and you won't sell your home,

boomers. And And you told us we could

always make more than our college

education cost, and that was a lie, too.

>> Yeah. When I was talking about economic

opportunity, it's somewhat shorthand, if

you will, for also being able to afford

that community.

Affording that community can be

healthcare. It can be housing, right?

But let's talk about housing. Here in

Pennsylvania, I've asked the legislature

for a $1 billion fund to be able to

build more housing in Pennsylvania and

repair existing housing. 50% of my

housing was built prior to 1950. You can

invest a few thousand bucks in a new

boiler, a new roof, some new windows,

actually keep people in their homes, and

not have to build new homes. We also

have to eliminate, or damn near

eliminate, the red tape that exists when

it comes to building housing. We got to

be able to build this faster. And so, I

put forth a regulatory reform plan to be

able to build more housing. I think that

is, um, really, really crucial. Let's

talk about college for a minute. The

first day I was governor, the first

executive order I signed was to do away

with the college degree requirement to

work for state government. We have

80,000 employees, damn near all now you

do not have to have a college degree

other than say the doctors and lawyers

and people like that who require

advanced degrees. So now 60% 60 60% of

all of our hires in state government

don't have a college degree. We followed

up on that by tripling our funding for

votech and CTE in our high schools. Our

dramatically increasing our funding for

apprenticeship programs. 62% of my adult

population here in Pennsylvania do not

have a college degree. So we need to

make sure we're investing in them so

that they have opportunities. You want

to go learn to be a welder? You're going

to make six figures working in a

shipyard in South Philadelphia. You want

to go and you want to work on HVAC

systems? You're going to work in some of

our most complex life sciences

construction jobs and you're going to

make six figures doing that. So for us,

we fundamentally believe that you've got

many pathways to opportunity here in

Pennsylvania. For some, it's going to

college, great. And for others, if you

choose not to go to college, that's also

great. We're going to make sure that we

pave the way for you and give you that

opportunity.

>> Yeah, the generation two about movement

is

well upon us. People are starting to

figure out going in debt 100, 200k

versus getting a plumber job, carpenter

job, HVAC, whatever for six figures out

of the gate is a much better

opportunity.

>> Yeah, and to be clear, I'm not

on people that go to college. I went to

college. I presume you went to go to

college. But for too long, by the way,

politicians in both parties defined

success exclusively

around the idea of you having to have a

college degree and then set up arbitrary

barriers to entry. Hey, if you don't

have a college degree, you can't apply

here. What about the skills that you

developed in the military? What about

the skills you developed at a trade

school or the skills that you developed

working in the private sector? Those

skills should matter, and now they do in

Pennsylvania. And we're no longer taking

an elitist approach that shuts people

out just because they don't have a

college degree. We're giving them the

keys to opportunity, and we're giving

them opportunities to pursue more

success here in Pennsylvania.

>> Does the socialist democratic movement

worry you, Mondami and the crew?

And

how do you think about that in terms of

the party dynamics?

>> I mean, remember the question you asked

me out of three or four questions ago

about you said, "Well, yeah, I only

agree with 14% of what you agree with."

You know, come join the party. Look, my

view is that we got to have a big tent.

And my view is that we've got to have a

real debate around different ideas. And

just because I might not agree with you

on these three things, I might agree

with you on something else. Listen,

>> Yeah.

>> I'm sitting behind my desk here in the

governor's office. This is where I

negotiate bills and budgets and other

things. If I threw everybody out of my

office that I didn't agree with 100% of

the time, we'd never get anything done.

When I sit down across the table from a

Republican lawmaker, I say, "What are

the 10 things you want to accomplish?" I

tell him the 10 things I want to

accomplish. And you know what? We're not

going to agree on all 10, but if we

agree on three or four, I'd rather focus

on those three or four things where we

can find common ground than the five,

six, seven things where we're just going

to disagree. And so, I think if you want

to make progress, you got to figure out

how to create, you know, majorities.

Whether it's a majority in the

legislature to get a bill to my desk, a

majority come election time to win an

election, you got to find ways to bring

people together and find common ground

and not just focus exclusively on our

differences.

>> What's your take on what's going on in

Congress, Senate in terms of Trump and

getting alignment there? Because, hey,

when you go to war or you do tariffs,

um this was something we had a

consultation between these different

branches of our government. And we had

other presidents on the Democrat side,

etc., you know, say, "Hey, we're going

to just get rid of student loan. I'm

doing an executive order." Curious your

take on the balance of our of our

different branches of government and the

lack of collaboration because this is

particularly disturbing. We're both Gen

Xers. We grew up watching the Democrats

and the Republicans argue, but then they

all got together, had lunch, and they

negotiated. Where is that esprit de

corps of everybody rowing in the same

direction uh for all Americans versus

this toxic, you know, we're we're just

going to block each other at and do

character assassination at every single

turn. It's it's the most polarized of

our lifetimes, for sure.

>> think the Congress of the United States,

um the leadership there, I mean, they're

frankly kind of sad, pathetic people.

And let me explain why, right? You put

um

what's his name, Johnson in as a

speaker,

and he's effectively a rubber stamp for

anything Donald Trump wants. And by the

way, whether you agree with Trump or

not, I think you can agree that you'd

like your member of Congress

to at least meet the burdens that they

have on them in the Constitution of the

United States, which is to be a check,

which is to be a a separate branch of

government, and a branch of government

that has meaningful responsibilities

here. When the Congress of the United

States walks away from their

responsibilities, whether on tariffs or

whether on declaring war,

and ultimately just kind of empower the

president, again, agree or disagree.

Obviously, I have profound disagreements

from the president on on those things.

Then what what you've really done is

you've limited um the power of the

Congress. And what you've really done is

you've seen a whole bunch people that

put Donald Trump before the oath of

office they take to the Constitution.

And I think that's just pathetic. By the

way, why these people work so hard to

get to Congress, to move up in

leadership, to do all the things they

got to do, and then give away their

power to Donald Trump? That's pathetic

and it's weak. And I think our country

is suffering as a result of it. Look,

I'm here in Pennsylvania where where it

all began 250 years ago.

And the brilliance of our founders

um was that they left so much of the

work

to the next generation and the

generation after that to pick up the

baton and continue to perfect our union.

Our founders though

always contemplated two things.

One, that there would be honorable

people in office.

And two, that the people in office would

exercise their power and be a check on

one another.

And in some cases slow things down to

make sure that bad things didn't occur.

Bad things couldn't get through the

process.

I think what Americans are confronting

now is a realization that we don't

really have all honorable people in

positions of authority in the federal

government. And that that checks and

balance system that was constructed here

in Pennsylvania is not standing the test

of time because you've got these

profoundly and pathetically weak people

like Johnson and others who just simply

give away their power to folks who are

corrupt and to folks who are not acting

in an honorable way.

>> You keep uh bringing up that corruption.

Explain to me what corrupt things you

know that the Trump administration has

done.

>> I think to me there has been an

extraordinary amount of self-dealing.

There there has been

um a good bit of family members doing

quite well in this uh in this

environment. I think you're seeing more

and more people who have the president's

ear being able to lobby him at his swim

club to get a pardon for someone that

frankly doesn't deserve a pardon. I

mean, I think the list goes on and on

and on, but those are some examples that

I think the American people see with

their own eyes taking a you know, a

billion-dollar jet from the Qataris and

thinking there's nothing attached to

that, right? I mean, I think that

there's just a lot of that that moves so

fast that the American people are having

a hard time keeping up with it, but

there will be a reckoning on this one.

>> Yeah, I so on the pardons I'm strongly

agreeing. Feels like the pardon power is

super abused. Is is there a path to

refine that tool cuz it relies on norms,

right? And ever since Bill Clinton, you

know, did some, you know, friends and

then obviously Biden did his son and

then Trump's doing his,

you know, folks. It feels like now this

is just a get out of jail card. You come

into an administration and then

everybody from Fauci to you know, Hunter

Biden and everybody else is just going

to get a pardon on the way out. How

would you reshape that tool?

>> Well, let let's be clear and I I don't

think you're suggesting this, but and I

was critical of Joe Biden when he

pardoned his son, right? I was critical

of him publicly. What we are seeing

under Donald Trump, you have to admit,

is next level when it comes to the

abuse.

>> it's yes, it's in the first year. It's

not on the last day even. It's like an

ongoing tool here. We had CZ

who was a a crypto person who got

pardoned and Trump didn't even know who

he was. Right. He was just like, "Ah, I

heard he's a good guy."

>> I mean, I will tell I sit at this desk

here

and I sign pardons and clemencies.

And I take that responsibility so

seriously. And and I agonize over these

decisions.

And and I pray that I get these

decisions right.

And I believe I have. And I'm

transparent about why I viewed someone

as worthy to get a clemency and also

worthy of not getting one or not worthy

I should say but but also not earning

one. And these are tough tough

decisions. Goes back to what I said a

moment ago. Our founders when they

vested that kind of authority in an

executive didn't necessarily do

something wrong by giving the executive

that power.

But they were leaning on the assumption

that the executive would be honorable.

That the executive would would would do

this with morality and real scruples in

mind and and I think what we're seeing

with the president is if you sidle up to

him at his swim club

you donate a certain amount of money

maybe or you have his ear for some other

social reason, you can usually get him

to give a pardon to someone who's

important to you.

>> Yeah, the the pardons definitely are

super troubling. How do you deal with

the family members and the kids

enriching themselves?

Obviously

nothing has been

um

done by a court or an investigation into

Trump's kids at this point. Um so we

just want to be clear about that. You

know, we had uh Hunter Biden

getting a ridiculous million-dollar

board seat. I've never seen anybody get

paid a million dollars to be on a board.

That was obviously corrupt in some way

or somebody trying to curry favor.

Doesn't mean the president Biden was but

definitely was corruption there.

How do you deal with kids of and and

this has been going on for a while um

these kind of allegations.

If we if we can't rely on honor and

norms

is there another proposal here that

the kids of you know, people in office

can't make money. Your kids can't make

money. If I was running for office, my

kids couldn't make money in the free

market. How do you Is there any kind of

solution you can think of?

>> I think it is important. You you cited

Hunter Biden. They went through a legal

process. There was an investigation by

the Department of Justice. I think there

has to be a real look, I say this as a

former prosecutor, a real look at some

of this stuff and follow the evidence,

follow the law. And if charges are

warranted, bring them in. By the way, if

charges are not warranted, don't bring

them. Do not use the the rule of law as

a tool to go against, you know,

political opponents in in any way. But I

think what you've got to have here are

people who are operating with real

morality. And you do have to figure out

a way to operate within the norms again.

I'm unwilling to accept that that is

gone. It may be temporarily suspended

under Donald Trump, but I'm hopeful that

we can find our way back to that. Let me

be clear about something else here. That

finding our way back to that

is a bipartisan exercise. It's going to

require Republicans and Democrats and

independents all demanding, when they go

to the ballot box, that we want to

elevate people who are ethical, people

who are honest, people who are focused

on doing their jobs with integrity. And

then when those people are in office,

rewarded with the votes of the public

and in these positions of public trust

to hold them accountable as well.

>> And you believe that can can happen in a

post-Trump world?

>> I do. I do. I strongly agree. Hey, it's

a year since your home was firebombed

by

an insane person who was anti-Semitic.

Your faith comes up over and over again.

I personally think people are a little

obsessed with it, but here we are and

the Democratic Party's been split apart

as well over this support of Israel

issue. You have a very nuanced position.

Number one, how are you dealing with

that personally, the anti-Semitism,

which to me as somebody who grew up in

Brooklyn with lots of Jewish friends and

all kinds of different people, just

insane to think that

Jewish students are being or any

particular group of students being

chased by the other students at Columbia

University because they're Jewish and

this chaoticness um is just

heartbreaking, but as a Jewish person

and literally experiencing it firsthand,

I mean, how are you doing with that?

>> Yeah, I appreciate it. Look, we

we should separate this and have two

conversations. One about Israel and one

about anti-Semitism because you kind of

blurred both in that question. Let's

focus first on anti-Semitism. I have

been very outspoken

about those who are engaging in

anti-Semitism, peddling words that are

anti-Semitic. And importantly, I've been

critical of people on the political left

and on the political right. And I think

anti-Semitism is a problem in our

society and is a problem on the left and

it is a problem on the right. And I

think it is important that we call it

out. We call it out whether we're in an

interview, not

>> Yeah. A conversation.

>> a conversation, yeah. Call it out when

um you know, on on social media. And

then we just call it out in our

communities, in our daily lives where we

see it. On that, there should be no

nuance. We should be able to come

together, people who are Jewish, people

who are Christian, Muslim, and all agree

that hatred, bigotry in any form

directed at a Jew, a Muslim, Christian,

anyone, it has no place. And by the way,

it makes us all less safe. And so we

have to focus on speaking out against

that. No nuance on that.

>> Yeah.

>> On the issue of Israel, the Middle East,

and the war in Iran, and Gaza, there's a

lot of nuance there. I'm happy to answer

your questions on that, but I think on

the issue of anti-Semitism, we have got

to be in a place where we universally

condemn it. And I think what you're

seeing from some folks on the right and

some folks on the left is they'll only

call it out if it's said by a political

opponent or someone they disagree with.

And I frankly respect people on the

right like Ted Cruz who have called it

out within the Republican Party. I've

tried to call it out when it rears its

ugly head in my party, it is important

that it be universally condemned.

>> So easy to do. Let's tackle the uh issue

of Israel and I would say, yeah, every

Jewish person, Jewish-American person

who I know, when I ask them about this

issue, obviously, incredible tragedy

October 7th, going and collecting the

hostages seems like a reasonable thing

to do.

I was there for 9/11, you know, seems

like a pretty analogous situation.

This has to be settled and the United

States went and did what it had to do in

Afghanistan and took out Iraq for extra

measure. Um it's a whole other

diversion. But, 100% of folks say they

don't agree with Netanyahu's approach to

what happened in Gaza. And then, folks

feel a decent number of people, whether

it's reality or not,

that America's getting dragged into this

war with Iran not under false pretenses

uh and because Israel is pushing us to

do it. So, let's take these two issues

separately and I'm just curious in

understanding your position on this. Are

you part of the Jewish-American diaspora

that believes, "Hey, Israel has a right

to defend itself, but maybe Gaza went

too far."

>> Okay. Well, first off, um let me say

this. I don't view this issue as a

Jewish-American, as you said. I view

this issue as an American. And I view

this issue in a way of trying to

understand what is the best thing for

America, which to me is having peace and

stability in the Middle East. Okay?

That's how I approach these issues. It

is um and I've been clear and consistent

about this long before October 7th, that

I think Netanyahu, the leader of Israel,

um is someone who's been leading Israel

down a dangerous and isolated path. I

think he has made Israel um more

isolated in the world community. He has

fractured really what used to be a

non-partisan or bipartisan

um American support for Israel. And I

think he has put Israel in a very

dangerous place. And of course, he was

the leader of Israel who wasn't minding

the shop when October 7th happened. So,

I've been very critical of Netanyahu for

years and years and years.

I've also for years made very clear that

I think the America's interest in the

region should be for stability and

peace. And that it would be my hope that

you would have two states living

peacefully side by side, Israel and a

Palestinian state. Now,

I realize that is a long way off given

where we are right now. But it is clear

that we need to work toward that. And

obviously, that Palestinian state cannot

be led by Hamas, which is a terrorist

organization. And there has to be some

structure that is put in place in order

in order to create that. As it relates

to the war, which you also asked about

in in your question, I mean, this was a

war of choice. The president never

defined the objectives. It is clear that

I don't know how the hell to get out of

this.

Um we'll see what he ultimately does

with his big threats. You know, we're

we're recording this on the eve of his,

you know, of his big uh threat um using

language

>> using language that was so

offensive, you'll excuse my language,

that diminished the value of human life.

Um we'll see what he ultimately does.

Does he chicken out as he usually does,

or does, God forbid, he he go through

with that? This was a war of choice. He

didn't know why he got into it. He

didn't know how the hell to get out of

it. America's

>> get into it, handicap?

>> America's national security interests

have not been well served by this. And

economically, you've talked about this.

Economically, we are worse off uh

because of this war. I'm sorry. I didn't

mean to speak over you.

>> no, no. I mean, listen, I I appreciate

your candidness, Governor. Why did he do

it? If you had to handicap it, or what

are you hearing when you talk cuz you

have obviously a lot more information

than the average

American?

>> Why now? Why did we do this now? We had

done, you know, the strategic trimming

of the hedges, mowing of the lawn,

whatever the term is to get rid of the

nuclear progress. That's containment

seemed like a perfect strategy, and then

all of a sudden we decide we're going to

do regime change. This is after Trump

promised that he would never get it in

would do an intervention like this in

the Middle East. This is after we were

told by the Republicans do not vote for

a crazy Democrat who will take us to war

with Iran, and here we are in month 14

or 13 of the Trump presidency, and he

started a war.

>> Yeah.

>> His own biggest advocates, from Megyn

Kelly to Tucker Carlson and, you know,

people on the fringe, Alex Jones, and

everybody in the middle, the comedians

who supported him, the podcast diaspora,

or the podcast bros, they're all fleeing

the ship.

They did not want this. So, here we are.

Why did he do this? Why now? What is

your handicapping of it?

>> Well, I I'll answer that. I will just

say it's yet another broken promise to

the people who put him in power. He

screwed over the farmers who put him in

power. He told people he wouldn't slash

Medicaid. He cut Medicaid. He told

people he'd bring down prices. Prices

have skyrocketed because of his tariffs.

He He's got this long string of broken

promises. Now, why did he break this

particular promise?

Let's Let's examine the record. First,

Rubio went out and said he did it

because if we didn't move then,

Netanyahu was going to move and was

going to force our hand. Then they

walked it back. He said 7 or 8 months

ago that they destroy their nuclear

capabilities, and then came back 7 or 8

months later and said, "We had to go in

because we had to destroy their nuclear

capabilities." I don't know. Then they

said it was about regime change. Well,

great. I mean, we went from like an

80-something-year-old Ayatollah to a

60-something-year-old

Ayatollah who, by all accounts, um seems

to be far more hardline. I'd hardly call

that successful regime change. So, to

me, it is hard to

think you've seen I've been trying to be

very forthright in answering your

questions.

>> You're doing good.

>> know how you answer that question

because the president never answered

that question. He never sat in the Oval

Office and looked the American people in

the eye and said, "This is why we're

going in." And you know what? This isn't

semantics. This isn't politics. If you

don't know why you're going in, you

don't know how the hell to get out. You

don't know how to instruct the military,

our brave military, including those 13

souls who did not make it home to their

families because they went on a mission

that the president never defined. And we

mourn their loss. We thank our military

heroes for what they did. We thank our

military who are out working every day

on behalf of our freedom, and our

safety, and our security. But they

deserve a commander in chief who would

have defined the mission. And if you

define the mission, you know how to get

out. He never defined the mission. I

don't know, ultimately, if he will

follow through on his threat. Again,

it's, you know, it's Tuesday afternoon

you and I are talking. We'll see

ultimately what he does here. But, um to

me, this has been a failed and

compromised mission from the beginning

because he never made clear why he was

going in.

>> Yeah, and I know you got to go in a

moment. It does seem to me that first

explanation, sometimes people hear their

first reaction and their first statement

is the true statement, uh just in

general. And it does seem like Israel

was going to do this, and we joined

them, and we didn't need to.

And to your point about Afghanistan,

should never pardon me, America should

never be led around by any other nation.

It should always be about America's

interest, our national security

interest, the interest of expanding

freedom and opportunity for the American

people. We should never, ever be bullied

as maybe President Trump was by any

other world leader.

>> Back to the anti-Semitism we're

experiencing now, you said, "Hey, let's

address them separately." But I don't

think you can separate them if

we're getting pulled into this war by

another nation and people believe, like

you and I do, "Hey, Netanyahu maybe went

a little too far here."

That is what's causing the anti-Semitism

in this country, don't you think? This

relationship with Israel, the state of

Israel and Netanyahu

>> I think I think you have to be

>> support for Netanyahu, that's not

causing the anti-Semitism here. That's

what these young people seem to be

saying is, "We don't want to vote for

somebody who supports Netanyahu."

>> Well, I think you have to be real

careful on that. You you the collective,

not you individually. I mean, if you're

suggesting say that Jews are Israel and

reflect Israeli policies and support

everything Israel does. I mean, that's

one of the oldest anti-Semitic tropes

out there, this sort of notion of dual

loyalty. I think it is fair to vote on

the issue of do we support what Donald

Trump is doing relative to Netanyahu.

That's fair. But to suggest that somehow

it's, you know, because Jews are tied to

Israel and that's why

>> Well, you and I can parse this issue, I

think, very easily. But young people at

Columbia or Harvard, where all this is

going on in these, you know,

pro-Palestinian protests are going on,

they don't seem to be able to make that

parse. That seems to be one of the roots

of the problems here that people do put

together

>> Yeah.

>> These young people, they could be

stupid, they could be misinformed, but

they do put together what the state of

Israel is doing and they equate it with

Judaism. That's what I have tried.

>> And that's why I'm trying to be so

outspoken on this, and making clear that

on anti-Semitism, there should be no

nuance. And that's a conversation where

we should all be able to unite, and that

we have to protect a place for nuance

when it comes to Mideast policy, when it

comes to Israel, when it comes to Iran,

and and and anything happening in the

Middle East. And we need to give space

for those who want to peacefully and I

want to stress peacefully protest. We

want to give space to those who differ

from the administration, and frankly,

those who support the administration to

be able to go out and to protest

peacefully. And that is I think an

important part of the fabric of our

American society. I just think it's

important. I try and do this work every

day as governor to keep those

conversations separate, because when

they get blended, that's where I think

it gets dangerous, and that's where

I think it it really crosses a line into

something we don't want to see in our

society.

>> And you could be

super critical of Israel, and you could

love your Jewish

neighbors and friends. These are these

this is a very simple concept here.

>> And I think that reflects where I am on

many things. I've been super critical of

the Israeli government, the Netanyahu

government,

and and I'm someone

who who loves Israel, someone who has

spent time in Israel. I wrote a whole

book about

proposed to my wife there, and and how I

think the the idea of it is is

important. We've got to figure out ways

to keep those two conversations

not not separate, but but blurring the

lines in a way that creates some

dangers. I think it's something we have

to guard against.

>> Yeah, lots of education, lots of

opportunities. Josh Shapiro, thank you

so much for coming on All In, and we

look forward to having you on again, and

good luck with your race, good luck with

your 76ers. I will see you in the second

round, it looks like.

>> Next year or next time I'm on, I'll be

wearing a Sixers hoodie, so

>> Go Knicks.

>> There you go.

>> I'll see you court side, my friend. Do

you go to the games?

>> I'm going all in.

I'm going all in.