Josh Shapiro on Trump, Iran War Chaos, Israel's Failure, the Economy, and 2028 Race

Records saying setting popularity in Pennsylvania right now 60% approval at least he's a moderate. He's focused on getting done GSD stuff on crime

rank 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 cut to the tape. Got him. Very nice. Here's your governor. Look at those short shorts. Holy yeah, proud of him. Wow. Slate 80s. Ben based on the BHS take this looks like the 80s. Yeah, that was

“19 90 I think. Look at that plane the points. There you go. Very nice. Very nice. All right. That was”

back when people shot mid-range jumpers. They don't do that. Yes. They don't do that. It's so good. All three is yeah. I mean, we have a couple of players and we were talking before the show started. You're obviously a big Philly fan, I'm a big Nick fan. So I will see you at the games where we're on a collision course. By the way,

with all due respect and I hope we have a good conversation. I hope you never see you at the games.

It's not just showing up in Philly with all your nicks crap on. I'm not going to be happy, guys. Oh, look at itself in court side. With my friend Dave, who is one of the co-owners of the team, who's our mutual friend of ours. I think you are on a little bit to come on the program here. He did you appreciate it. He said go on all in. They have thoughtful conversations and anxious to have them with you. So thanks for having me. Yeah, there's so much for us to talk about,

but I thought I would start with your track record in Pennsylvania. 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 10 year here in California. I left California for Texas because 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 win. 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 because 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 government. 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 forward child care for seniors for working Pennsylvania's. We've taken our permanent process. That's the usually

that 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 moneyback guarantee on all of our permits. If we don't get you your permit and time, we'll give you your money back. And fun fact, we've issued 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 and 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 VOTAC and apprenticeship programs. And understanding the need to take the workforce we have today and prepare them for jobs here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And 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 to 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 is you said at the top is GSD get you done. Those are the areas where we focus on

“getting you 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? Obviously, I'm an investor in technology companies and we just saw red tape after red tape that on housing. It's incredibly hard to build anything. The nimbee is if you cast a shadow, nothing can be built and then housing prices keep going up. And if you want to hire a nanny or a teacher or if a firefighter moves in,

this and why can't other states not fix it? I mean, look, I can't speak to outstanding 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 predictive ability to know your business is going to be opening six months instead of three 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 building 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 or attitude has shifted. Third, we've got to have that money back guaranteed. Because that money back in tea 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 another thing is we work with the legislature to pass new laws to speed up our

permding. 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 permding 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. 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 I'm saying I called my barber. I asked him and 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 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 need it happen. I think that's a great point. I want to focus on what you just said there.

First off, I start the conversation believing that 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 that help. Then you mentioned in your question, the way people get, I don't recall if you used the word frustrated or they feel the government sort of holding them back, right? Not sure if it's aggressive in a way. If you have

that experience three or four times whether it's at the airport or getting your driver's license or getting the haircutting, you know, certificate, it's just oppressive over time. You just feel like the government's working against you. Yeah, and what is 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. You won't work. They get frustrated by it. They get pissed. And then not only are they pissed at that agency

or that governor or their 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 find that, you know, if we get it down 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

taking over the conversation, that's not what the majority of the country wants. They want to just

live in a high functioning society. It was curious how you look at fraud, ways fraud and abuse my friend Elon, drop a name, you know, did the stosure thing? It 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, give you 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 seemed to have gotten ahead of this. You've been doing this for years. So maybe you could explain your take on fighting fraud specifically healthcare or in other areas. Yeah. Look, look, I think we've got to focus on rooting fraud

out of this 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 I am proud of serving his governor and having the privilege of sitting here 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 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's 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 safe 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. I think any other state, maybe there was one other. We're certainly toward the top of that list. Prad the fact that we've identified that, we've sent it to prosecutors 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, less regulation, lowering taxes, eliminating fraud, 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, depending on which state you live in. And then there's this.

“You should be paying more taxes in Pennsylvania, man. Stop paying on elsewhere. Yeah,”

really. 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 see is 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 when public now and you could sell some of it, but you might crater the stock of you to and Elizabeth Warren,

Bernie Sanders, and California, you're all trying to seize assets. And this is 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 on mass 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 seems to be getting momentum. I mean, let's just say, 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. She come to Pennsylvania. Good deal. Okay, here. And look, I mean, that kind of tax that you're describing is not something we have here. It's certainly not something on my agenda. I do think people need to pay their fair share. I think you to 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. We got to make sure that folks at the top are paying their their fair share in order to sustain our society. And I think we've struck a really good

coming to this state pairs that out. And I think there's an important stat. One of the things you

cited in those entrepreneurs as you are going through your question is, you know, these were people kind of started with a dream with an idea that, you know, some of them might have looked at and said, geez, I don't know about that, but they stuck with it 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 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 got a 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 invested 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 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 up 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 rungs 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 every well. And only 40 percent, only 50 percent of the country really participates in a meaningful way in

equities, the other 40 50 percent don't have any exposure to that. So how would you deal with

somebody making, you know, $100 billion, $500 billion, it's trillion dollars and never selling

their equity, or maybe not selling it for 20 years. Let me make sort of three points, a Pennsylvania point, then a couple broader points. One, you cannot have a national economy that works if it's only working for the one percent. 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're going to be able to buy some stuff that someone at $50,000 can't buy. We sort of understand that, but you've got to have opportunity, and you've got to have a level playing field. And you've got to have a fair shot, and you've 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 Pennsylvania's 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 home, we're going to put some money back in your pocket.

That $940,000, almost a million Pennsylvania's 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 cost 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 investments they need to make in their everyday lives. Here's the third point. What I would not do, because you ask what I would do, what I would not do, is what present Trump did at the federal level with an aid and assist from a whole bunch of sick and fancing 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 Palacir truth and justice, you talked 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 Pennsylvania's 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 we're 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 on 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 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

middle class. And I think that that is that that lacks 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. I'm an independent, but grew up Irish Catholic in Brooklyn. So grew up in Democrat probably have voted

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”

shalacking they got in the last election. And specifically, what really troubled me, Biden didn't look like he was all there. And 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 speedrun primary. They didn't do, you know, capsule primary over that July August period and gave you a shot. And other people shot Fritzker, Buttigieg, whoever to compete for the nomination.

Was that a huge mistake for the Democratic Party? And when you look back on it, do you think that might have cost you all the election? Look, I mean, I actually wrote about this in the book. I recently

published where, you know, it became clear to me that, you know, Joe Biden's seeking another term

was probably not the best interest of the party or the country. And I spoke to him directly about that. And bluntly about that. Once he made the decision to drop out with a hundred whatever days to go, you know, 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 it, you know, actually, look at 2025. It was the opposite. I mean, the president's party, we're probably in party, got beat 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 and it's in American politics and clearly swinging back. I think what's important is is that we look forward. And 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 do 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 a part, 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 be 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 get the chance to govern, not just winning the election. And so having these debates right now puts us into better position when we win those elections. And I'm running for reelection right now in Pennsylvania. I'm going to work my ass off to win another term and earn the supporting people of Pennsylvania again. And I want to continue to deliver, continue to, you know, focus on these issues that matter most

“and having that debate, I think is really healthy. Understand, looking forward is most important.”

But I got, I got to go one more time in the review 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, Trash Shapiro, she'd be really in that running. And she didn't pick you specifically because she

didn't think she could win with the Jewish vice president. Yeah. So I don't respectfully, I got to push back on that. And again, I, I've been very, very open. I wish back on it. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. And then, and it, we're special. I'm not looking to, you know, be argument with you. But I, I, I, I, I, 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 him walls, I pulled out, made clear that that was not something I was interested in doing. I thought I could serve the good people of Pennsylvania and, and, and do my best serving here as governor and a job that I absolutely love. So this wasn't about her not picking me because of my faith. This was about me, and again, not being interested in, in that job. Really? So, certainly, yes, because 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. Uh, you know, you got to do the work, but it's pretty clear you're going to appreciate

if you were to run for president, which people seem to think you've got a really good shot. But you're, but low, maybe national recognition right now, we'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 poll position for now. I want to understand the democratic party and how they should proceed because just like the right seem to separate and you had this magical election, uh, and you had, you know, the

traditional Republicans who were just a gas that 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, this socialist Democrat movement, which I think a lot”

of moderates are like, well, that's confusing. We don't want to have more pandamis 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 handing out for me, what has to happen in the democratic party to win in 2020? I understand why you're asking. And I will answer your question. I don't think anyone should be

looking past these midterms. And while I appreciate the confidence yet you have in me and

and maybe in 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. that the chaos and the corruption that exists there. I think people need to show up in record numbers and vote their concerns. And so 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 see reelection. 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 down 42% in our commonwealth. We've invested in public education. And by the way, scores are up true and see is down. We're moving up on the list. We're about 10th 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, 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

two years of this presidency, which was extremely popular for the first nine 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 change. I think it's pretty accurate to say the tariffs felt like those were chaotic. 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 weeks six of this. So it's

certainly going to be a referendum on Trump. And it feels like all the Democrats have to do a 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 from you. What is that picture? I think on both sides of what you just said, Donald Trump chose to push the tariff button, right? And as a result, here in Pennsylvania, what we're seeing is coffee prices are up 30%. B is up 19%. OJ,

Iran chooses 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 our economy with these tariffs. Obviously, this war has spiked gas prices up today about four or 15, four or 16 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

top three things be? Like, if you were running the Democrat party 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 it. Therefore, he's out of the party. He's a little bit weird on them.

Well, but, but the Democrats did. And then, oh, Elon Musk waited hours to, and had Obama at SpaceX, and then all of a sudden he can't come to the White House for the EV summit that category he created. Like, it's pretty obvious that 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 endured 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. Like, okay. Yeah. So walk me through.

“So let's take that out. I think should be, yeah. Let's say, first off, you attribute a number of”

things to Democrats that I didn't say. So we're, you're here interviewing me. So let's focus on the things I say, number two, they went and they corded you and you'd demerred. But by the way, even had you not demerred, had you signed up. I don't know that your life would be better off after year and a half in Trump's policies. What I am for here in Pennsylvania, the ultimate swing state, the toughest state to win in incredibly tough state to govern in, particularly with a divided

legislature. I'm for investing in public education, given every child of God and 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, 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 a contingent of 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 dreams a bit of a scam and college is overpriced. So how do you think about housing and what is that an issue in your state or let's talk about housing. Let's also talk about college because you're both in your question. 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're able to get home and you won't sell your home 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 short-hand if you will for also being able to afford that community. A forwarding that community can be health care. 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 a 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 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 16%, 60% of all of our high-resence state government don't have a college degree. We've followed up on that by tripling our funding for Votec and

CTE and our high schools are 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

welder. You're going to make six figures working on a shipyard in South Philadelphia. You want to

go and you want to work on an HVAC system. 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 sitting on people that go to college. I went to college. I presume you went to college. But for too long, by the way, politicians are in both parties. Define 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, mandami 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 part. 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, 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 and the legislature to get a build on 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 Congress, Senate, in terms of Trump and getting alignment there, because hey, when you go to work or you do tariffs, this was something we had a consultation between these different branches

of our government. And we had other presidents on the Democrat side, et cetera, you know, say, hey, we're going to just get rid of student loan. I'm doing an executive order. I'm curious your take on the balance of our different branches of government and the lack of collaboration, because this is particularly disturbing. We're both GeneXers. We grew up watching the Democrats and the Republicans argue, but then they all got together, had lunch, and they

negotiated where is that, a spree decorps of everybody rolling in the same direction for all Americans versus this toxic, you know, we're just going to block each other and do characters, ascension at every single turn. It's the most polarized of our lifetimes for sure. I actually think the Congress of the United States, the leadership there, they're, frankly, kind of sad pathetic people. And let me explain why, right? You please. What's his name, Johnson in is a speaker,

and he's effectively a rubber stamp for anything Donald Trump wants. By the way,

“whether you agree with Trump or not, I think he 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 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, a grier disagree. Obviously, I've profound disagreements from the president on those things. Then what you've really done is you've limited the power of the Congress, and what you've really done is you've seen a whole bunch of people that put Donald

why these people work so hard to get to Congress, to move up in the leadership, to do all the things that got to do, and then give away their power to Donald Trump, that's pathetic and it's

“good. And I think our country is suffering as a result of it. Look, I'm here in Pennsylvania,”

where it all began 250 years ago, and the brilliance of our founders 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 bringing up that corruption explained 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 has been a good bit of family members doing quite well 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 mean, those for 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? Now, 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. So on the pardon's a strongly agreeing, feels like the pardon power is super abused. Is there a path to refine that tool? Because it relies on norms, right? And ever since the 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 to 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's be clear. And I don't think you're suggesting this, but 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 me upon the way. 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 is a crypto person who got pardoned and Trump didn't even know who he was. He was just like, "I heard he's a good guy." I mean, I will tell you, I said it this desk here and I signed partens and clemencies and I take that responsibility so seriously and I agonize over these decisions. 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. Because 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 do this with morality and real scruples in mind. And I think what we're seeing with the president is if you decide a lot to him at a 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 partens definitely aren't super troubling. How do you deal with the family members and the kids enriching themselves?

Obviously, nothing has been done by a court or an investigation into Trump's kids at this point.

million dollar board seat. I've never seen anybody get paid a million dollars to be an aborted.

That was obviously corrupt in some way, or somebody trying to carry a favor doesn't mean the president Biden was, but definitely was corruption there. How do you deal with kids of, and this has been going on for a while, 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 of this important, 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 is 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 it. By the way, if charges are not warranted, don't bring them. Do not use the rule of law as a tool to go against political opponents 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 independence. 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, we're awarded with the votes of the public and in these positions of public trust to hold them accountable as well. And you believe that can happen in a post-Trump I do. Yeah. I strongly agree. Hey, it's a year since your home was fire bombed 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 Democrat 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 that Columbia University

because they're Jewish. And this chaoticness is just heartbreaking, but as a Jewish person and literally experiencing a firsthand, I mean, how are you doing with that? Yeah, I'm trying to be look, 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, pedaling 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 prominent 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 accusing you by any conversation. Call it out when on social media. And then we just call it out in our communities and 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, and any form directed to 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 on 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 is 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 hauled it out within the Republican party. I've tried to call it out when it rearves its ugly head in my party.

“It is important that it be universally condemned. So easy to do. Let's tackle the”

issue of Israel. And I would say, yeah, every Jewish person, Jewish American person who I know,

when I asked 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, it seems like a pretty analogous situation. This has to be settled. And the United States went and did what

But 100% of folks say they don't agree with Netanyahu's approach to what happened to Gaza. And then folks feel decent number of people, whether it's reality or not, that America is getting dragged into this war with Iran, not under false pretenses, and because Israel is pushing us to do it. So let's take these two issues separately. And I'm just curious and understanding your position on this, are you part of the Jewish American diaspora that believes, hey, Israel is right to defend itself,

but maybe Gaza went too far. Okay. Well, first of, 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, and I've been clearing consistent about this long before October 7th that I think Netanyahu, the leader of Israel, is someone who's been leading Israel down a dangerous and isolated path. I think he has made Israel more isolated in the world community. He has fractured really what used to be a nonpartisan or bipartisan 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 and years. I've also, for years, made very clear that I think the America's interest in the region should be first ability 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. 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 to create that. As it relates to the war, which you also asked about in your question, I mean, this was a war

of choice. The present never defined the objectives. It is clear that I know how the hell to get

out of this will see what he ultimately does with his big threats. We're recording this on the eve of his, you know, of his big threat ultimately using language, using language that was so offensive. You'll excuse my language that diminished the value of human life. We'll see what he ultimately does. Does he chicken out as he usually does or does God forbid he go through with that. But this was a war of choice. He didn't know why he got into it. He didn't know how they held

it. Get out of it. America's national security interests have not been well served by this. And economically, you've talked about this economically, we are worse off because of this war. I'm sorry. I mean, why did he do for you? No, no, no, I mean, listen, I appreciate your candidness, Governor. Why did he do? If you had to handicap it, or what are you hearing when you talk? Because 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 from it's that he would never get 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, 13 of the Trump presidency, and he started a war. His own biggest advocates from Megan Kelly to Tucker Carlson, and, you know, people on the French Alex Jones and everybody in the middle of the comedians who supported him, the podcast, I asked where the podcast grows, they're all fleeing the ship. They did not want. So here we are,

why did he do this? Why now? What is your handicaping? Well, I'll answer. 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's got this long string of broken promises. Now, why did he break this particular promise?”

Yeah, let's let's examine the record. First Rubio went out and said he did it because

Then they walked it back. He said seven or eight months ago that they destroyed their nuclear capabilities. And then came back seven or eight months later and said, we had to go in because we had to destroy their nuclear capabilities. And 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, I told it was 60-something-year-old, Ayatollah, who by all accounts, seems to be far more hard line. I'd hardly call that

“successful regime change. So to me, it is hard to, I think you've seen. I've been trying to”

be very forthright answering your questions. You're doing great. I don't 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 and I 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 to 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 it. We mourn their loss. We thank our military

heroes for what they did. We thank our military who are outworking 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're not going to get out and he never defined the mission. I don't know, ultimately, if he will follow through and is thread again, it's, you know, it's Tuesday afternoon, you and I are talking. We'll see ultimately what he does

here. But to me, this has been a failed and compromised mission from the beginning because he

never made clear why he was going in. Yeah. I know you got to go in a moment. It does seem to

be that first explanation. Sometimes people, yeah, 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 of view, never. Pardon me, America should never be let around by any other nation. It should always be about America's interest, our national security interests. The interests of expanding freedom and opportunity for the

American people. We should never, ever be bullied as maybe present from 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 I'm going to 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. That's 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 we're doing it.

I can hear this issue. I think very easily. But young people at Columbia or Harvard, but we're 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 part. 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. And that's why I'm trying. And that's why I'm trying to be so”

outspoken on this and making clear that on antisemitism 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 Middle East policy. When it comes to Israel, when it comes to Iran 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, frankly those who support the administration. We have to go out and to protest peacefully. And that is I think in an important part of the fabric of our American society. I just think it's important. I try and do this work every day's governor's to keep those conversations separate. Because when they get blended, that's where I think he gets dangerous. And that's where I think it really crosses a line into something we don't want to see in our society.

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 I'm someone who loves Israel,”

someone who has spent time in Israel wrote a whole book about proposed to my wife there and how I

think the idea that is is important. We've got to figure out ways to keep those two conversations

“not separate, but but blurring the lines in a way that creates some dangers. I think it's”

something we have to guard again. 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 of”

looks like next year. Our next time I'm on, I'll be wearing a sixers hoodie. Okay, I'm going next. I'll see you, court side my friend. You go to the games. I'm doing all of you. [BLANK_AUDIO]