Will California Elect a Republican Governor? Steve Hilton Thinks He Can Win

I'm in love with it, still. I get really excited, driving around as I do

and just seeing all these incredible things

that we have, this, everything. It's just amazing. (upbeat music) - Hi everyone, from New York Magazine in the box media podcast network.

This is on with Kara Swisher and I'm Kara Swisher. It's been two decades since California voters elected a Republican to lead the state and while it's a long shot, former Fox News host in British American Steve Hilton

believes he can defy California's deep blue politics and become the state's next governor. He's trying to appeal to voters anger over the state's high cost of living and their desire for change.

His personal story is also interesting. He was born and landed to Hungarian refugees who fled communism and his background in Silicon Valley and as an advisor to former British Prime Minister David Cameron could give him some separation

from Magistyle or Republican politics. But in a state like California, Hilton will have to win over a lot of Democrats to have any shot of winning in November. And if there's one thing California voters

hate more than paying close to $6 a gallon for gas, it might be President Donald Trump. I do think Hilton's long shot bit is worth paying attention to, even if his chances of winning are slim

because he's actually a very interesting thinker. Well, I do not agree with him on a lot of stuff and I thought he went sometimes off the rails on his Fox News show. He's also someone who's a lot more thoughtful

and he is the kind of Republican absent Donald Trump. If he didn't have to be so close to him, that might be interesting to a lot of voters. We've also reached out to Hilton's Democratic opponent, former Health and Human Services Secretary,

Havier Bessera, his team declined in interview at this time. I don't think that's a great idea for anyone running for governor. They should talk to reporters and give interviews and not be safe, sorry.

“I'm sorry Bessera, but you should have talked to me.”

So let's get to my interview with Steve Hilton. Our expert question comes from Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bull Work, so stick around. Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business takes everything you've got

and a lot of the tools out there that are supposed to make your life easier, just aren't great talking to each other and that means you end up having to toggle between a dozen different apps and services

just to keep the lights on, enough of that. Now there's Odoo, the all-in-one fully integrated platform that actually might help you get it all done. Thousands of businesses have made the switch so why not you?

Try Odoo for free at Odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O.com.

- Recommendations can be amazing.

I mean, maybe someone recommended that TV show you've been obsessed with lately. But when it comes to home projects, it's different. If you don't like a show, you might lose a few minutes. If you hire a friend, a friend, of a friend,

to fix a leaky ceiling, you could end up with a flooded kitchen. Maybe I know a guy just isn't enough for your home. That's why thumbtack works so well. They'll match you with a top-rated local pro,

and you can see photos of past work, credentials, and reviews all right in the app. For your next home project, try Thumbtack. Higher the right pro today. - Summer vacation has gotten very expensive.

Flights, hotels, food, why bother? It's a lot of people, I think, just this summer kind of looking around and saying, well, I wanna go on vacation,

“but also, is this gonna be a really expensive disaster?”

This week, on explaining it to me, how to make the most of that precious PTO. New episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts. - Steve, thank you for coming on on. - Of course, great to be with you.

- So we've known each other for a long time. Correct, I guess we met through Rachel, your wife. - Yes, yeah. - I will say I'm gonna pay you a compliment. You wanted to come and do an interview.

Mr. Bassero would not, so I appreciate that you're here. What's great to be here? I mean, I just think it's important to have conversations just generally, and I know you're gonna give me an incredibly easy time carousel.

It was a no brainer to come and talk to you to this. - I thought so, I knew you could keep up,

but let's start with the first question.

Help for me is one of the blue estates in the nation and has an elected or Republican for governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger's reelection in 2006. So to start, give us your theory of the case.

“Why do you think you could be the state's next Republican governor?”

- I think it really starts with the reality of life in California. We've had 16 years now where you had one party in control.

small business owners in particular, are just really tough, right? I mean, we can go through the data, but it's bad. I mean, we have the highest poverty rate in the country, right now tied with Louisiana, highest unemployment rate

of all 50 states, the highest cost of living by fall, highest gas prices, electric bills of doubled in the last 10 years they're now doubled in national average. Groceries, the most expensive, a lot of that is driven by energy costs, housing,

the most expensive in the country, it's just really tough to live here. - This is not a new thing, Steve. This is not a new thing. This is tough to live here during Schwarzenegger.

It's tough.

California has always been one of the most expensive states in general.

“- Yeah, but I think it's this sort of combination of things.”

You've got all of those economic factors. You've got the fact that the homelessness problem seems so intractable, their school results are really bad, even though we spend a lot of money per student. I think it's just a sort of combination

of all these things, the business climate. I think is definitely something that's gotten worse, and you see that reflected in so many companies, leaving, and actually the last investment from businesses that normally you'd have expected

maybe to set up in California, then the choice is wider in terms of other states, where you can do a start-up or whatever it may be, you know that very much. So, I think basically it's just all these things have come together.

To a point where there's a majority now, this is news. If you look at the polling right across the board, there's a clear majority who say the state's going in the wrong direction and needs change, and that wasn't the case before.

- So why you, why are you the person who can fix this? 'Cause like I said, these aren't new problems, and these homelessness in particular has been intractable through many governors, including Schwarzenegger.

- Why are you the person to fix this? - Well, there's sort of literal factual answer to the question

is that 2.3 million people voted for me

in the primary to be the challenger. And so the question behind that is, well, why did I succeed in the primary beating? Even Tom Stier with his hundreds of millions of dollars. - Well, it's good to know money doesn't buy politics.

- Yeah, it's not. - Elon's gonna be putting into this race, I'm guessing we'll go ahead and know about that, but I don't know, I don't know anything along those lines yet,

“but look, I think the sort of prior question”

is what why did I do well in the primary? I think it's because I've been putting forward, honestly, a pretty pragmatic, positive set of things to change those basic realities in California, especially focused on cost of living in the business climate,

and we can get into the individual elements there, but it's been something that is not, I really feel strongly, who I am as a person, 'cause now participating in this race, it's someone who's just a pragmatist,

I'm not ideological, I don't want to tell anyone how to live their life, I just want everyone to be able to live the life they want in California in an affordable way, and that's really what got me focused on running. - Yeah, you did get a lot about,

there weren't a lot of Republicans running, it was you in former Riverside County Sheriff, Chad B. Algo, who seems vaguely insane, who was a very hard magga guy. But let's talk first about President Trump

as a door to in the race. But in California, Democrats have been nearly two to one voter registration advantage, as you know, over Republicans that a poll came out last month, pretty closely mapped that, had you trailing

the Democratic candidate, the Sarah by 25 points, so you'll need Democrats to win, so make the case for why a Democrat should vote for your people who are independent slash Democrats. So I've been directly making that case,

you know, since this phase of the election, we actually launched our general election campaign a couple of weeks ago now in East Los Angeles, Boyle Heights, working class, Latino neighborhood, been in the news because there's that terrible warehouse

fire there that burned out of control for a week, and then you had the terrible situation with like 85 million pounds of rotting meat and flies and disease and the terrible smell. It just really represented for me.

A classic example of a community just let down an abandoned by the leadership of the city and the state, and we actually ran ads in the LA times in the San Francisco Chronicle and some other publications, explicitly addressing your question.

And the headline of the ad was, "Can you be anti-Trump and still vote for me?" And we put forward a number of questions, for example, this is in the sort of test that you could take.

“I'm a Democrat, but I think the state needs change.”

I care about climate, but six dollar gas is insane. It's that truck, I can't remember those exact questions, but in other words, there are millions of Californians who can't stand President Trump, that is very clear.

There's not a mystery who would never think of themselves

as Republican, but who think we need change in California. - So you think they can buy far-cate on this issue? - Yes. - 'Cause regardless of party, there's lots of people who aren't happy

with the President, barely at third of Americans approve his job performance right now. I'd like to--

So for example, there are other states

Vermont, Maryland, either now, or in the past, where you've had a strongly Democrat state that's elected a Republican governor. - Sure. - And that's not true, isn't it? - That's true, isn't it?

“- Exactly, so it's not an unusual thing, wouldn't it, maybe?”

- That's a particular kind of Republican, and I'm not so sure you are that, and politics are different, right? - Well, let's see. - Let me ask you, give us two examples

where you disagree with the President on policy issues. This is sort of the Kamala Harris on the view question. What's he doing bad for California? - I don't know if you call it a policy question, but I certainly have said very clearly,

but on the 2020 election, for example, Biden on the election, I mean, that's something where I definitely, you know, he has a different view.

- I will note that you didn't say certified.

Thank you, because I want to slap you. - Yeah. - I feel that, and it's exactly-- - So Biden on the election, go ahead. - The way I think about it is that, as things come along,

there's a few things, I mean, just in, since I've been a candidate, for example, I strongly disagreed with this suggestion that they would take out customs and border patrol from California airports in retaliation

for the state sanctuary policies. You know, you don't only have international flights going to neighboring states, ridiculous. I don't agree with the withdrawal of funding from the University of California,

it's incredibly important institution in our state, but, you know, maybe there are things that we need to improve in terms of the focus of the university system here on the anti-semitism, whatever it may be, but I don't think that's a sensible way to prosecute that.

I don't know, what's in our landlight, right? The FCC just sided with the phone companies, against California regulators on the provision of landlines as a service for people who couldn't get cell service.

“You know, so I think that my attitude is,”

I'm going to say what I think is in the interests of Californians, regardless of what the administration is doing. However, I think it's just be honest to say that it's a Republican administration, I'm a Republican candidate, generally speaking,

you'd expect me to agree with a direction in terms of economic policy reform deregulation, tax cuts, you know, those kinds of things, I support. Yeah, and I think we need more of it in California. - So Trump prices loyalty above all else,

and you know this, he seems to take credit for your primary victory. How are you going to walk that line of appealing to disaffected Democrats that you're talking about without hurting his feelings and having him lash out?

'Cause he does that, he just went after Janine Piero for telling the truth about the Lincoln reflecting poll. - Well, I think the hell it's, well, see, my attitude is just, you know, we need to be open and have a good rate, and it's not just the president,

it's his team, you know, I know many of his senior team, you know, Rollins, the AX Secretary is going to be hugely important for us in California with the trouble our ag industry is in. Doug Burgham for Interior,

we're going to do a lot on our forest management and so on.

“So I think that there's the way I think about it”

is let's just be practical and focus on what we can do together to help California, and I think it's just good to have a governor that has those kinds of relationships. California also occupies uniquely

almost international role, right? It could be a country unto itself, and a very, very successful one. When you get to international issues, like the war and Iran, again,

we'll be a bit the same thing when you disagree with them. Are there things that you much, very much disagree with them on an international basis right now? - I just don't think I'll be getting into that, honestly. I think there's just a lot to fix here in California.

I think one of the problems we've had, and it's not just limited to California.

First of all, I just don't agree with you,

course you're right, and I'm proud of the fact that we're the fourth biggest economy in the world. That is great, and I think we can do even better with the reforms I'm talking about in terms of our business climate.

I think we can become the third biggest and overtake Germany, that's my goal. As well as doing it in a way that actually helps lift up working people in small business, not just big tech companies, which is kind of where we're going at the moment.

I think that in terms of the international thing, I really, I think there's been too much of that. I really do, I think that Gavin Newsom, for example, has been sort of running around, doing, you know, international agreements

and trying to, in a way, act as a counterweight to the Trump administration's foreign policy. And I just think, meanwhile, we have the highest gas prices in the country that's crushing working people. Can you just focus on that?

The fact that less than half the kids in the world? - That can be about the situation in Iran, Steve. I mean, I don't think that's where they're going to be. - Well, it's $2 higher now than anywhere else in the country. Even with the situation on Iran.

- Because there's less, we have more taxes here on gas. - Yeah, we have the highest gas tax, but the mainly it's regulatory. So it's the low carbon fuel standard, it's the cap and trade, sorry, then our call it cap and invest.

It's refinery regulations. The whole bunch of things we do in California

They make no difference to climate.

They just really hurt. Especially those people who use their cars in France. - I get the higher prices, but the most of the race is because of Iran right now. I mean, you wouldn't acknowledge that.

- But not the relative. I mean, it's $2 higher here than the rest of the country. So let's at least get that done. - Okay, so you're running on a platform or affordability in the state with notorious

affordability problems. The issue, Democrats have struggled to tackle even with full control of the government. Assuming you won't get that, where can you, you're going to need to work across the aisle

on the issue? And what can you do in an executive level to ease the cost of living in? And let's be specific here because it's such a huge issue and people want to hear, is that?

Now, I want to get people better dry. And give very specific about what you mean and how you're going to, you're going to have to work with Democrats one way or the other. - Yeah, yeah, and I've got experience of that.

I mean, the last job that I did before moving here in 2012 with my wife Rachel, you know, and our kids was in the UK government. I was seeing a advisor to the Prime Minister. I really focused on domestic policy there.

He was a conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron. But it was a coalition government, two parties. Another party, the Liberal Democrats. I was actively involved in negotiating the coalition agreement and then I lived that every day.

I actually shared an office in Tendown, and it's street, and a little office right next to the cabinet room with my opposite number from another party. Probably, McKenzie, we would sit there every day and we would, you know, hash it out

and an off from the policy process would go through us. So I do have some experience about that. The other thing I'd say is that during the primary campaign, what was interesting to me was how much common ground there was between the candidates, between me and the other Democrats.

Definitely in terms of the diagnosis of the problem, as you just said, you know, there's no disagreement about that.

I remember the very first kind of candidate for them we did.

“I think it was the Chamber of Commerce and Sacramento”

about a year ago, and it wasn't all the candidates about five other Democrats that, and they went, and before me, and like everything they said, was what I was planning to say. Antonio Vieragosa stands out and he's the first one.

I remember it so clearly said, we have the worst business climate in America. We have to do more to help, et cetera. So I think there's shared ground in terms of the problem. In terms of solutions, I think there's shared ground.

For example, Katie Porter, who at one point was leading the Democrat PAC, she adopted my tax plan and said so, very openly in the debates. So the first part of my tax plan in the primary was to eliminate state income tax for lower paid workers.

- That's one of your big campaign promises to eliminate state income. - Yes. - Let me be specific for Bill, who make less than $100,000 a year, and as you said, others campaigned on this idea too. - Yeah, we've actually lifted it to 100.

I got a lot of feedback that actually that level was too low, which to a lot of people in country might sound crazy, but actually in California, you've got multiple counties now, where they have, because of the cost of living, the official poverty level, low income, is 100,000.

So you've got a lot of people who are not, by no definition, wealthy, really struggling in that category between 150, so we've lifted it, and we've made adjustments to the overall financing as a result.

“So I think there really will be areas of common ground”

where we can get things done, not everything, but some things. When your question about executive orders, I think there's a couple of specific examples. So one part of my plan to bring gas prices down

is to stop the insanity of importing the 80% of the oil that we use in California from countries like Iraq, all the Amazon rainforest, rather than producing it here in California. The way that Newsom and the current administration

has shut down in California production is to an agency called Cal Gem, California Geologic Energy Management, and it's the process through which they refuse to give permits for any part of the production process,

including maintenance of wells. That's how they shut it down. That's a direct change you can make by putting in their people or putting in your point. - By the end of the appointment system.

- Yeah, we've been saving the same people, we'll come to their senses. You just need some common sense on this process. There's a lot of areas where you can really affect it directly through executive action.

- But getting back to your tax plan, Porter planned to make up for the drop in state revenue that would come with that by taxing wealthy people, more your plan is to get services and waste it. - You're not spending, that's not the say, yeah.

- Okay, what are you gonna cut? - So I just wanna put it in the context of the budget, so that they've doubled the budget nearly in the last 10 years. It's especially rapidly accelerated since the pandemic. So the argument that spending more gives you better results,

I think has been disproven by the fact.

“So I think we just got a rain in the spending.”

What's really happened is the pandemic spending has got baked into the baseline. If you look at the budget this year,

that Newsom just signed off it's about $350 billion.

The budget that he proposed in January 2020, just before the pandemic, $220 billion.

I would like to get the budget back

“to pre-pandemic levels allowing for inflation.”

So that's when you take inflation to account,

that's probably $100 billion reduction in spending.

Obviously you're not gonna do that in one go. - So where? - Well, there's different categories. So I'll give you one example that's not cutting spending, it's just getting more value for money,

so you can reduce the spending. There's a contractor I spoke to she does roads, road building, they do public works. All over the country, she was explaining the in California and costs four times as much to build

the exact same equivalent piece of road as it does in Texas. Now their road quality is rated higher than ours. It's not going into that. It's going into all this unnecessary process

and bureaucracies that kind of stuff that Ezra Klein has pointed out in Derek Thompson in their book abundance, project labor agreements, community workforce agreements, endless environmental processes. If you strip all that out,

you can get the same result with less money. So that's one category getting just better value for the money that you're putting in. Secondly, there are areas where I think we shouldn't be spending the money.

And here, I would say is what, you know, national Democrats, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and particularly, have said is an unacceptable area of spending and that is full scope, medical, Medicaid

as it's known across the country for citizens of other countries.

Now that's about 13 billion dollars a year in California.

Even Gavin Newsom has said that's gone too far. And they're now reducing eligibility for that. I just think that when Californians are struggling to pay health care costs, it's just not acceptable use some money

in national Democrats agree with that. - So Democrats, it's absolutely deserve some blame for California's affordability problem. There's no question about that. But also, currently, the Trump administration's policies

are also hurting Americans. Chair of sub-driven prices, as I noted the war in Iran. And Trump is in helping Republicans like you by saying things like he's not even thinking about Americans' finances, even a little bit.

Again, since Trump is such a huge figure everywhere, and it's fixated on California among other states, how would you handle situation where you believe the President's policies are making Californians cost of living worse?

I've heard so many Californians about the tariffs, 'cause there's a lot of important export businesses here. And they directly blame Trump for this. - Yeah, I think that that's a good example of, I wanna focus on the things that general policy direction

that, you know, it's not gonna affect, there's not a particular effect on California, it's just a policy position, and you know, they're not gonna affect it. So I think I would not get involved in that.

But where you've got specific things that affect California,

“I think it's gonna be very important on agriculture, actually.”

If you look at the impact of some of the policies on B, I'll just with some beef produce, our largest beef produced, actually, the other week. And where there are specific things that you can say look, are you aware that this is really hurting our producers here?

Then yeah, I would lobby very hard for that. - You would advocate the White House, these things are hurting the people you represent. - Yes, that's true, that's true. - That's true. You could tell them tariffs are hurting businesses.

What effect could you have? - Well, I wouldn't make a broad, I would say this particular thing.

I think it's always good to focus on the details

and something specific, I don't know, but at least, I'm going into it with a good relationship, particularly on Ag with Rollins, who I know very well. And I don't know, I mean, we'll see, but I think that's, I think it's a good example

where I think it's helpful to have someone who at least has a good relationship. So you can pick up the phone and say, come on, this is not, oftentimes it may just be they're not aware of the impact.

And so you might win that argument because it was something that wasn't particularly an important priority for them anyway. - Well, he does love those tariffs. Trump has been selling a lot of doubt

about the US election systems. I want to quickly hit a few of this and get some short answers from you. Is California's mail-in ballot system secure? - Yeah, I don't know, I mean, look,

the voter rolls are not.

“And so that part of it, I think, is the problem”

where you've got millions of ballots sent out to people who have moved out of state or moved multiple addresses. And so that definitely is a problem. I think the sort of general concept of it,

the operation of it, I think is secure. Yeah, I think it's the voter rolls part that's not. - And you're a pro-mail-in ballot. - No, not really. I mean, I think they're convenient.

I mean, I generally like, I personally like-- - I mean, Donald Trump does it. - I personally, I love voting on election day, I love the civic ritual, I think that's great. But I absolutely understand that it's convenient.

And finally, enough, I think that as a candidate, you can see that it's in many ways helpful to have mail-in voting and early voting, because it helps you target your resources in terms of getting out the vote.

So I don't think there's any going back on that.

And so fine, let's keep it.

- Do you agree with Trump's claims that there were irregularities in the state's primary election results enough, so it's to warn investigation from federal prosecutors like Trump asked for? - We didn't see anything.

I mean, all I know is what we saw in our campaign as I said at the time, I wanted to make sure to our supporters that we were on top of everything. And so on, and we didn't see anything that caused us concern.

- So you don't think federal investigations.

“- Well, I think that Bill Isselli, who's the US attorney,”

I think he was going to do it, and I don't know, actually. I'm spoken to Bill about it, so I don't know. - Is illegal voting of non-citizens of widespread problem in California? - I don't think so.

I mean, there's anybody else, but Trump. - There's definitely controversy over extending it to local elections.

I can't know where we stand on that.

I think San Francisco did it for school boards. I think it's being debated in their lay. I don't know, I think I don't agree with that. No, I think the real problem is the voter roles being so out of date.

- Yeah. - We'll be back in a minute. - Support for the show comes from IQ Bar. If you're looking for delicious, low sugar way to fuel both your body and your brain, check out IQ Bar.

Their ultimate sampler pack is a great place to start with 9 IQ bars, 8 IQ mixes, and 4 IQ Joe sticks. Every IQ Bar product is made with clean flavorful ingredients with support both physical and mental performance, including nutrients like magnesium,

lion's mane, and more.

“The bars are packed with plant protein and fiber”

with no added sugar. IQ mix is a zero sugar drink mix with electrolytes that help hydration, mood, and mental clarity. And when you need an extra boost, IQ Joe is a mushroom coffee with 200 milligrams of natural caffeine to help you focus.

Best of all, everything comes in a variety of great tasting flavors. I really like IQ bars. I like to chocolate ones or peanut butter ones. I also use their IQ mixes after I work out.

A lot of these things can taste terrible in these do not. And right now, IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ bar products, including the ultimate sampler pack plus free shipping. To get your 20% off,

text Cara to 64,000. Text Cara to 64,000, that's Cara to 64,000. Messaging data rates may apply, see terms for details. Support for this show comes from Delete Me. Stalker, Scammers, and Hackers are doing whatever it takes

to get their hands on valuable data. Luckily, there's Delete Me. Delete Me removes your personal information as being sold online. It does all the hard work to wipe your personal information

from data broker websites. It's one of the reasons Delete Me was named the top pick for data removal services by Wirecutter, plus discounts get even better with a two-year plan when you enroll with your partner or family.

I think Delete Me is one of the best services out there. It's very easy to use. I look at my report quite a lot. There's a lot on there that really is disturbing. And it's really important to keep track

of what data brokers have about you and how they're putting it together, and an ability not just to see it, but to do something about it. Take control of your data and keep your private life private

by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to join DeleteMe.com/cara and use the Pringle Code Cara at checkout.

“The only way to get 20% off is to go to join”

DeleteMe.com/cara and enter the code Cara at checkout. That's join DeleteMe.com/cara code Cara. Support for the show comes from groans. Some are can disrupt our routines with busy weekends that are full of travel and events,

and with everything going on, it can be hard to remember to stick to your wellness habits. Well, groans is one of the wellness habits you don't have to think about. It can be the easiest tastiest part of your busy schedule.

groans are convenient, comprehensive formula in one delicious daily pack of gummy bears. This isn't a multivitamin, a groan's gummy or a pre-biotic. It's all of these things,

and then some are a fraction of the price, and it takes great. They're able to pack in 20 vitamins and minerals in a daily pack with 16 ingredients, all of which include nutrient-dense and whole foods.

A groan's pack also contains six grams of pre-biotic fiber, helping visualize it that's equivalent to more than two cups of broccoli. Groans and ingredients are backed by over 35,000 research publications. You can't fit the amount of nutrients,

groans does into one daily gummy, which is why it comes at a pack. Say 52% off with a code, [email protected]. That's code, kera-k-a-r-a-g-r-u-n-s.c-o.

So let's move on to Tekken Silicon Valley. You mentioned it briefly, and you said the job of a governor is to grow the economy and support industries here rather than regulate them in the past.

You've been critical of corporate monopolies

like we see in Tekken, increasingly.

So what role of any should the state play in regulating massive home-grown industries like Tekken, how do your views evolved over time? - Okay, I just want to start by saying, I really do see it as my job as governor

to help every industry in California.

“I think that of all the industries in California,”

the one that needs the least help right now is Tekken. - Sorry, honest, they're doing well. I think that just, I don't want to detour into this, but I think that the two industries that I think really need emergency attention

from the governor is agriculture that we've mentioned, but also entertainment. I think there's a massive, you know, - I'm going to ask you about that later. - Yeah, so I've spent a lot of time on that.

Right, let's get to Tekken. So I think generally speaking, it's not top-mindless to priorities in terms of gonna help.

There's probably two issues that when I think of AI,

I don't know, I know it's not just AI, but obviously that's the dominant narrative in Tekken right now. I think that broadly speaking, I'm very nervous and cautious about unintended consequences of regulations where the people doing the regulating

don't know what they're talking about. I think there's two major areas where I think we probably need more regulation urgently. One is in relation to children, and one is in relation actually,

connects to Hollywood and entertainment on copyright and artist rights and the creative product and all of that.

“So I think those two are really important areas.”

Honestly, the main thing I'm focused on in relation to Tekk is actually getting to use a Tekken, the full stack of Tek jobs into California. So what you've seen lately is all these California homegrown companies, really fantastic companies and video for examples,

the big one. Last year, 2025, I think it was April, they made a huge announcement about investment in the US, even if they inflate these numbers for the press release. And they were for about half a trillion dollars of investment.

None of it in California later that year andthropic, big investment. That was all going to, I think, New York and Tekk'sers. And that's for gold. For gold.

They still, we get our fair share, I would say. Yeah, but this is the point, right? So you've got this contrast. You've got fourth biggest decorum in the world, a lot of that is driven by these big tech companies

and the huge revenue that they bring in, and the highest unemployment rate in the country. And also, to use a really nerdy term, the labor force participation rate is pretty historically low in California,

it's about 62.8% and it's peak in California has been nearly 70%. So you take those two together, the highest unemployment rate low labor force participation, there's probably about four or five million

Californians of working age who are not working.

“And I think the gap is in these manufacturing,”

blue-colotite jobs. And so I want to see the manufacturing and high-end production side of tech here as well. That's really what I'm interested in. But in interview with Semifore,

you said government regulators are aiming at the wrong targets.

The problem is in the tech companies or their apps,

its screens and children's unsupervised access to the internet. So who's responsible for that? I mean right now, there's talk that Medis going to start being heavy on the child safety thing.

They're looking for anything at this point. I don't know if you've seen their recent ads, where they believe in humans now, apparently, which is great. I get to know.

- Disclosure in your wife work there, but I'm sure she laughed at it too. So who's responsible for that? And how can the government do that? I mean, they've had very little, as you know,

very little regulation on anything. - Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've been on this long time honestly. So you mentioned human, I wrote this book in 2015 called More Human, designing a world where people come first. It was in my book coming out of working in the government

and the theme of the book, sort of argument was everything in the world's become too big and bureaucratic and centralised in distant from the human scale as applying the argument to different areas of policy. And there's a whole chapter on childhood.

And in it, I argued at the time, just as you reference, that the real problem is not the apps and websites or whatever it is. It's the device. It's the unsupervised access to the internet specifically,

screens specifically smartphones. So what I argued back then was that the children should not have smartphones. Now, I didn't propose a specific policy. I just said, I don't think it's a good idea.

And when you ask the question by who's responsible, often there are playcums when it's parents who are responsible. And in an ideal world, yeah, that's generally true. I believe parents, I'm a parent. You've got responsibility for your own kids.

But I think it's a classic example of a kind of, you know, it's kind of like the pollution problem, which is you're affected by other people's decisions. In particular, that kind of peer pressure point, which is fine, you don't want your own child

to have a smartphone. And I don't meet many parents who think they should. They will just feel they have to, 'cause all the other kids have them. - Sure, again, where does the government step in?

- Well, so I'm just trying to work

with people like Comments Jim Star at Common Sense and so on.

It's been very good on all this, which is to say, and obviously, you know, we've had, what's in the name of the book last year that's had a big impact on all of this. - Oh, Jonathan, hi. - It's something, of course, yeah.

And I think where he was going was, let's try and establish a social norm, which is not regulation, it's not making it illegal, but if we can establish a social norm, that helps parents enforce a rule,

“I think his age was 14, actually, for the smartphones.”

- Yeah, but he's calling for regulation. I mean, there's a mountain of evidence that say social media companies knew their products were home for the kids, and time after time chosen engagement over safety.

In the design, earlier this year, Los Angeles Dury found met at a YouTube liable, in a case about whether they design their platforms to hook kids in a landmark lawsuit. And of course, interview parents who say

their children died by suicide with the encouragement of Chappax. And if you read these texts between them, it's very disturbing and heartbreaking. - That's terrible.

- But I think we better for the federal government to step in and regulate these powers, but it has it, and that means it has been up to the states. So what's happening right now is a lot of these are product liability lawsuits,

versus, 'cause they've been pushing against

the first amendment part of it,

but now, or it's Section 230, why shouldn't California follow the evidence and adopt, say, a social media ban as some countries have done? I mean, if the government isn't good--

- Yeah, like Australia started, right. - And it's France, it's going to Spain, your home country. - Yeah, but on the early verdicts are not good on that, in terms of being able to get it well, because it's ineffective.

So I'd rather have something as effective. - Well, I could argue, kids drink, and yet we say as a country they can't drink $221, or kids smoking. We, lots of kids smoke, but it does not.

- That's actually my argument. To when people say, "Wow, how are you gonna stop "kids having phones under 16?" I'd say, "We may be you won't," but at least you're setting a guideline,

and if most follow it, that's good news, that's progress. I think that we're in terms of the social media ban. I think it's so easy to evade. That's the problem.

The problem is the small--

- It's so easy to evade drinking. So we have rules about drinking. We have rules about smoking. We have rules about driving. Why not have rules about social media

if it's a product liability issue? - I think it's bigger than social media. It's digital content. It's the unsupervised access to this, where kids, when they're not in school,

for example, like, one thing we can do, at least, is enforce the school smartphone ban. I really agree with Gavin on that, except classic California, we've passed this thing, and it's not enforced at all.

So let's at least do that, right? That's so you've got wide consensus now

“that you have to have a smartphone ban in schools.”

But then, in a way, that puts it on to parents, like, the only time is outside of school. And I think that's the problem, which is the smartphone, because you can't be supervising your kids all the time.

You want them to have that independence. And so they will find ways around these bands. And then, you know, like in Australia, for example, they had a sort of specified number of apps. Well, if there's a new one,

do you keep at it's like a whack-a-mole thing? I think it's much more effective to try and stop kids having smartphones. I think that would do much greater good. - So get remove the device itself.

- Yes. - Which you'll think will be much harder. I would imagine, I'm sure Apple would love to hear that from you. So I'm sure that actually, let's talk about that. I'd sure that actually their response to that

as a fantastic, you know, innovative company would be to say, can we not invent a really attractive, like not spoon that still allows kids to text each other, maybe, or call each other, or stay in touch with their parents, that just doesn't have the internet.

- Well, the toy. - Apple spends a lot of time trying to stop doing age verification and fighting with meta over it, because meta doesn't think it should do age verification, and Apple doesn't think it should do age verification.

It's a really interesting fight where nothing's happening to, you could verify ages of using these devices. - I mean, it's a good example. I mean, my response to that, my instinctive response to that is, in a way, as well, I want to do this,

just one of the reasons I want to do this job,

“I think you have a real ability as governor”

to get those people round a table and have a real conversation, say, come on, guys, let's figure this out. Where we are is not acceptable. And you can't just keep playing me each other.

Let's, you know, you say this, you say that, let's talk together and fix it. - Do you have a phone now? - I do. - You didn't have a phone.

- Yeah, I have a, I'll show you, it's right, this is my phone. - What is it, what is it, what is it? - Oh, you have a flip phone. - Wow. - You've really made it upwards.

- It's adopted, that's a real technological progress for me. - Yeah, okay. - You're right, I had not for a long time, I had not. - You'll just go right to the glasses. AI in particular, the backlash is real though.

But we did, just in an episode about data centers that were a flashpoint across the country, the midterms. And a recent Gallup poll found Americans are becoming more skeptical AI and not less

And it's especially true of young people. I, my both sons have great worries about it.

“Who is to blame for that growing enthusiasm gap then?”

And how would you try to bridge it as governor? Because there's all these, as you and I know,

amazing things that could be done with AI.

But the AI leadership feels villainous at this point, talking about babies being more energy than AI, which is, is not a particularly good argument, or we're all gonna die, that was a nice message, or get used to it too bad if you lose your job.

So how, what, what are do you blame the enthusiasm gap? Because it's, it's a real thing is, and data centers, to me is the proxy for it of the answer. - It's a proxy, I think the... - And abuses, like actual abuses by, say,

Elon and Memphis, those are real abuses of local areas and local citizens, but go. - So I, overwhelmingly, I think the blame is with, it's probably two people, actually. The kind of, you know, AA, boy, wherever you want to call them,

Altman and Amadeu, they've been completely insane rhetoric over the last couple, insane in this sense, right? If they really believed that what they were working on was gonna destroy humanity, gonna end the human race,

“destroy what, then why would they keep working on it?”

I mean, what kind of pathological person would do that? If you truly believe that, so why are they doing that? Why, I think, it seems they've dialed it back, but they've done enormous damage, enormous damage, because that narrative has taken hold,

and it was the first narrative about this, really. I remember, actually, finally, I've got in more human in 2015, it was just emerging. The technology was really, and I wrote about it, and I said, "Look, I don't know, it's just emerging.

I'm not an expert, it's laughable now in retrospect." This is what I wrote, not quoting, but something like this. Well, I'm not the ex, I don't know where this technology's going. It's certainly gonna have a huge impact, but the good news is that some of the smartest people

on the planet who really know about this have gotten together, and formed an institute called Open AI, which will make sure that AI is developed in a way that benefits humanity and the Elon, and all these, so, look what happened there.

I think that they bear the greatest responsibility, I think that on data centers, I remember the data centers as what people use there, phones all the time, and trying every time you fire up Google Maps, or whatever, that's a data center, as well as AI.

It's, I mean, that's obviously now part of the product.

“So, I think it is a proxy for the concerns,”

and I think there's so, there are so many simple practical ways that you can turn the data center thing around, and I was seeing some of that, actually, coming from the federal administration in terms of electricity usage, the times had a great story about that recently,

I think that's all sensible stuff that you can do, and also in terms of where you locate them, and the noise, I think, everything that people are concerned about in terms of a data centers can and should be mitigated,

and if the companies aren't doing it voluntarily, absolutely, the government should make them do it,

'cause it's an essential infrastructure.

- I interviewed the Mayor of Lansing, Michigan, and he did one of these good data centers, and the citizen still didn't monitor it because of the anger towards it. - Yeah, it's interesting.

I mean, it will seem-- - I think it's one of the biggest issues going for it. - Yeah, I mean, I think on the, generally, on a, I mean, I think that you've got also, there's a big potential, which hasn't really been talked

about as much, in terms of the bringing manufacturing back. If you can use AI to really reduce the cost of manufacturing and combine it with automation, then you could see a real reassuring of manufacturing, 'cause suddenly it becomes affordable

to make things in California. - Sure, sure. - And AI could be a real part of that. - Except you might not need people as much, right? That's mainly talking about your--

- Yeah, but you need people to, you need some people. I mean, you know, and the scale of it could be really big. - We'll be back in a minute. (upbeat music) - Support for this show comes from FODZINE.

Feeling stressed about what you're eating, doesn't let you enjoy the meal, neither does consistently worrying about how you're gonna feel after you eat. With FODZINE, you can enjoy your favorite foods

without the stress or the pain. FODZINE is a tasteless powder you sprinkle right onto your food. It helps break down FODZINE maps. The hard to digest components in food that can cause bloating gas and pain

before they cause discomfort. It mixes into your food fast and it comes in portable packets you can take with you everywhere, just sprinkle eat and feel great. - I was able to try something I have to say.

It's very tasteless. I didn't feel digested as if it was afterwards. I felt a lot more comfort. I also put it on a bunch of vegetables that tend to make me bloated in some fashion and it worked great.

Here's what really sets FODZINE apart.

Every customer gets access to a free product consultation with registered dietitian. We're excited to partner with FODZINE and offer you 30% of your first order

That's I can eatagain.com/carah I've been thinking a lot about this one question I've been asked over and over. A question about the choices I've made, the colors of my hair, the things in the world I've spoken about and the things that I haven't.

I've heard this question ask so many different ways

but it always can't be the only one I've ever heard of.

I've heard this question ask so many different ways but it always can't be the only one I've heard of. I've heard this question ask so many different ways but it always can't be the only one I've heard of. I've heard this question ask so many different ways

but it always can't be the only one I've heard of. I've heard different ways but it always came down to why are you like this? And as you know there's no simple answer because people are not simple.

We're messy and complicated and contradictory and layered. So on my new show I'm sitting down with the ultimate disruptors. The athletes, the artists, the activists and the architects of our culture who looked at the way things were and asked

“why do we do it like this and can we do it differently?”

My hope is to give us a little more space to that question

and to the person on the other side of the mic.

Not to tell us their answer or read from their script but to take us on their journey. Check out my new show why are you like this on YouTube or listen in your favorite podcast app. New episode, drop every Thursday.

If there's anything we've heard about this entire summer no matter where we go or who we talk to it's about gas prices. I'm going to show you something look at these guys right there ridiculous. I don't drive as much.

I think they're just skyrocketing day in day out. Gas prices are up since Donald Trump started his war with Iran but how much does a little pain at the pump actually affect people's vote? Who is telling the truth?

And who is going to represent us and do something about it? And if gas is still near $4 a gallon come November is it game over for Donald Trump and the Republicans?

“The most important is you can't deny the reality”

that Americans feel people see what they're paying. Trump trying to not recognize what people are struggling with and then to ignore the severity of it is just not a winning strategy. That's this week on America, actually.

Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. - Speaking of people, immigration is a huge issue in diverse states like California. Every episode, we get an expert question from outside.

Here's yours. - Hello, Steve Hilton. I'm Sarah Longwell, publisher of the bull work. And you have a lovely accent. But your story is a quintessentially American one.

You're the British born son of Hungarian immigrants. You get an Oxford education. You ascend to the heights of British politics. Working for David Cameron and the British Conservative Party. You come to America.

You make a name for yourself here. And you end up as the Republican nominee to run the biggest state in the union. That is a genuinely inspiring immigrant story and a tribute to the power of immigrants.

Yet you're endorsed by Donald Trump, a man who calls immigrants Verman who are poisoning the blood of our country and whose ice agents are killing innocent people on the streets of America right now.

You are running to be governor of a state that more immigrants call home than any other.

More than 11 million Californians

are from someplace else. We've already seen the carnage that this administration is causing by unleashing immigration authorities on the streets of California and across America. So my question is this, how will your approach

to immigration at the state level differ from Donald Trump's? And more importantly, why should California voters place their trust and the lives of their friends and neighbors in the hands of a Trump endorsed candidate like yourself? Thank you.

And that's a good question. All right, very good. I think Sarah's question is, I appreciate it. And it's actually how I feel. And I'm so proud to be an American.

And I've renounced my UK citizenship. And I say all the time, I'm the candidate of the legal immigrant community for the legal immigrant community. But we have to be able to draw a line between legal and illegal.

“I think that in terms of, let's just get straight to the key part”

of this, which is immigration enforcement. The way I think about it is, obviously, you don't want to ever want to see anything like we saw like we have seen earlier in the year in Minnesota and more recently. And also don't want to see anything like we saw last summer

in Los Angeles with the rioting prompted by immigration enforcement. And if you look at the anatomy of those things, certainly with the California things, which I've started in a detail spoken to law enforcement in great detail about it. I think my approach would be to actually have the kind

we saw in the Obama years, which is a common sense, cooperative relationship between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement. It wasn't there, the state law enforcement did not. So there's a sanctuary law in California, SB 54,

is passed in 2017, and a lot of these are all that means that you can't cooperate with federal, that's not true. In fact, it was criticized at the time, Kevin Delay,

“or one of the authors, I believe, was criticized by the left”

from making it two federal immigration enforcement friendly as it were, that there's a whole set of things, a specific offences and conditions that allow for cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal law enforcement in California.

So actually, you would just be following,

never mind the precedent set by previous Democrat administrations

with California law, and that would be my attitude to have calm, peaceful cooperation, so you don't need that kind of heavy-handed enforcement. That would be my goal. - So how would you have handled the ICE raids as governor?

Would you have sued the Trump administration, like Newsom did when he tried to-- - They wouldn't have happened, they wouldn't have happened because you would have had cooperation at the local level to say, well, where you say yes,

you can work with them to find the people they're looking for, and then they don't have to go into the community. - Well, I think Stephen Miller has some other ideas. You could hear all their rhetoric. They said the city was controlled by gangs.

They made it narrative as if they had to come in, which wasn't none of which is true, and you know, you just, I don't know if you saw that Elon

interview with the economist, editor,

he's like, it's nothing like what you're saying is happening here. So what won't you do to help the Trump administration if they get what, if they do what? And I don't know, you don't like hypothetically. - I don't know, I don't think a no, I'm just curious,

I'm thinking about what that looks like. I want to say-- - How do you get it to be peaceful? And I would say probably Stephen Miller doesn't want peaceful, it's not his,

I'm not heard that out of it. - He's not running it directly. A Tom home, it is, is running. - Yes, I get that. - I think that.

“And I know Tom, and I think he, I don't they want to see this.”

I mean, I really don't, I don't think-- - Well, he doesn't, Christy, no, I'm kind of dead, but yes, and so did the little tiny guy who looks like Chad Bianco. That whole genre of American. - Oh, I love him, I don't--

- I don't-- - I don't think, I'm just-- - I don't think we'll get to that point. And if you look at the prioritization now in terms of immigration enforcement, generally speaking, it seems to me,

that they are very much focused on the part of this where there's wide consensus, which is criminals, who've broken the law, beyond just entering-- - Sure, but they've gone beyond that. Would you acknowledge--

- They're having the part. - Yes, but I think they're dialing it back. That is my sense. - So you pointed out your own story, as an example, doing it the right way.

You and your wife moved to the US in 2012 for her job, and she was a top executive Google at the time. But we've seen the Trump administration

strip legal status from close to 2 million immigrants,

many of whom arrived through legal pathways like yourself, some with temporary protected status, others come under Biden, Europe programs. You may not have liked those programs that they were legal programs.

What makes your image--

“my sum is, I think, why is your immigration”

sorry, different from someone who's been stripped of their legal status, or is threatened? I have so many friends, it's a new PhD thing. They're thinking of stripping them for just four years. I have many friends on green cards that

came in here legally, very nervous. These are all people that come in the way you say they should come in, correct? How should we treat these immigrants? They sound like, I mean, I think the temporary thing

is different because of the name, temporary. I mean, I think it was legally established to be temporary when the conditions of emergency are no longer present. Then that's different. Student visas, I've got green cards.

I mean, I totally disagree with taking that away. I mean, if you go through a process, you can't retroactively change the process, I think. The temporary protector started. I think that is different because the establishing law

was, I don't know, the exact time limit, honestly, but I think it was supposed to be temporary. Yeah, but again, these are people who are here trying to actually, and a lot of them actually support, say, the elderly here in this country, et cetera, there's going to be a lot of issues.

Would you stand up for someone from El Salvador, for example, there's a big Salvador in population in LA who came here legally, maybe on TPS, some of them not, but now we'll have their legal status stripped. And then they do it the right way?

Well, I mean, you've got to look at the individual case. I mean, the temporary, as I say, that is this federal program that is very specific, and it's very limited. And I think that you can't then, as it were, transfer into a general legal immigration status.

where there's expired or the conditions that gave rise to it a no longer there, then you've got it.

“I think there needs to be a process to get you”

onto another track, maybe that's the right way of thinking about it. OK, and for the dreamers? Yeah, I think that's honestly on argument. He's going for the dreamers now, so. Well, I disagree with that very strongly.

I don't know if that's true. I mean, I haven't heard that. I haven't seen any evidence of that. I know that they're looking at PhD candidates. Don't we want to keep those candidates here?

Yes, don't we? We want people come to this country to go to, say, you see school. Don't we want them to stay? If you're born here, yeah, if you're brought across as a child,

yeah, I think that's exactly right.

I've always been strong, I've been very--

I mean, I just talk about that on my Fox show all the time. I'm going to end with talking about Hollywood very quickly about what's going on, because there's so much going on. Hollywood has been bleeding jobs in California, especially during the years since the pandemic and the strikes.

The state is trying to lure those jobs back with more tax incentives. You want to make those incentives even bigger, but incentives can also be erased to the bottom, as you know.

“What can the state do more to lure those jobs back?”

You've got to start with the tax incentive. That's the main reason that you've seen places like-- well, actually, the UK. I mean, when I was the UK government, my friend and colleague George Osborne was the Treasury Secretary

Johnson Extractors at the Court, and he devised the UK tax incentive that's been incredibly successful for the UK. But now you've got other places. You've got hungry, and other countries in Eastern Europe.

Within the states, you've got-- New Mexico, you've got George's longstanding, now New Jersey has a really strong incentive. So it's just highly competitive. And you can take up philosophical position and say,

I don't like the kind of tax incentive raised to the bottom, et cetera. But on the other hand, my job is not to pontificate on what I think about that, say, right, we've got a crisis. We've got to do something about it.

What can you do? And I think my attitude to this is we have to have a kind of wake up moment where anyone who's making these decisions like sees a real change, a big change, and notices.

Well, that's number one, and it's not just the size. It's the-- what's included as in the technical term, above the line spending, so it's the whole production, not limited to certain parts. It's uncapped.

That's really important. That means that what you have now is because there's a certain man allocated. That means that every time you try and get it,

“you have to kind of apply and go through a bureaucratic process.”

And there's a lack of certainty. You don't know if you're going to get it. That puts people off. If it's uncapped, you know you're going to get it. It's automatic or most.

But on top of that, you've got to make the process of production easier. The California Film Commission needs to be revamped. I've said I want to turn it into a kind of a concierge service

where you just basically get all the help you need

to navigate a state and local bureaucracies in terms of permits and all of that stuff, which is just a nightmare in California's life and the else. And then the final piece of it is actually the same cost pressures that are driving other businesses out.

It's just incredibly expensive to live in Los Angeles because housing is so expensive, energy costs are high. And so on. So I think the general things that we do to bring to improve the business climate for everyone

will also help. But I think the two big ones are the tax incentive and the bureaucracy. - So Calvarn is leading also group of states and a lawsuit to block paramount's murder

with water brothers discovery. You say the suit is pure politics, but many industry oppose the merger. And also the journey to get to the approval from the Department of Justice felt a little political too.

So why is it in Hollywood and California's best interest for this merger to go through? - Well, I think one of the strongest reasons is that you've got a real commitment to theatrical release, which is a lot of the industry really wants to see.

And by the way, I love going to the movies. I saw the Odyssey in the movie theater. - Wow. - I love, of course. - I know, I understand, but you know what I'm saying.

I enjoy the, you know, it's an exciting, I love the fact that that's getting, it films like that and getting people back into movie theaters. So I think that they've made a strong commitment to that, to the specific number of releases per year

that are going to be in the movie theaters. That's new. I think also you've got to see it in the overall competitive landscape. I think they sort of rub onto the California Attorney General really can't defend this.

I mean, I saw his interview on the term, you know, well, someone who really knows about the industry, pressed him on these details. He basically fell apart. And when you really look into what he's been saying

about all of this, the main driver seems to be able to concern about what would happen to CNN. Honestly, I think that is the main thing.

- That he never mentioned it.

He didn't mention it. - Yeah, but like it comes out and all the interviews. - No, people know how I've been following this rather closely. He actually they bring it up to him. And that's a different thing, I think.

Now, the judge seems to be agreeing with Rob Bonta

He was going to get the preliminary injunction.

And now the trial is not till March. So someone agrees with him, the judge certainly. - Yeah, I mean, it's a process. - And so many in Hollywood, the writer's guild, the Screen Actors Guild, and a lot of theater owners too.

- Look, I mean, fine. I mean, to be honest, it's like some of these other things, from a policy point of view, that's not where my focus is. I can give you opinion about it. But my, you know, you can't really do anything.

- Right, you can't do anything. - I'll get to do whatever it wants, yeah. - Yeah, and so what I'm focused on is all the other stuff we've been talking about, where you were an arch. For example, I had a really good meeting with the unions

about all of that. And that was part of my policy development process was to sit down with everyone. And so I got good relationships there.

“And I think that we've got to save this industry.”

That's really my role of you. - You're also to be fair, a little bit of anti-technist to this, 'cause of the allsons. And they're, you know, they did suck up to Trump or get this through, which, you know, you kind of have to.

We've been talking a lot about housing, but you did mention keeping people in housing as one of the biggest problems and homelessness is intractable. What is your signature policy to deal with this because many people have tried?

The big, it sounds really not that new of an idea, but it's enforced the law. And I think that the starting point, of course, is to acknowledge that most of the people in terms of street homelessness have some combination

of severe mental health problems and addiction. And in a sense, it doesn't matter whether they became homeless because of those things or they developed those things once they were homeless. So there's a, there's exactly stress.

And all the other target for criminal drug dealing gangs, right? You're just an incredibly vulnerable situation. But in a sense, like that part doesn't matter. You've got to help people where they,

and you're never going to get people helped

if they are on the streets living in those conditions. So the first time homeless people, we put them in jail. What's enforcing the law mean for people who are the end of enforcement? - It's illegal to live on the streets.

It's against the law. It's always been against the law. And so you've got to physically take people off the streets and put them somewhere where they can get better. But well, for example, there's a really interesting proposal

from Down near San Diego, a disused military base to use as a shelter. There's so, we have a million and a half empty properties but I'll go on estimate in California. So the idea that we can't provide shelter,

look, the numbers, what is it, 188,000, something like that? It's large, but it's not impossible to imagine that we can do that. There's another really important aspect to this, which is the mental health component.

We are a way short of mental health beds in capacity in California. There's a really technocratic reason for this that is completely avoidable. Well, the whole medical system was set up in the 60s.

There was a rule put in place. That states that there is no federal Medicaid reimbursement for any mental health care delivered in a facility with more than 16 beds. Very specific, it's a 16-bed limit.

Now, that inevitably means that the money doesn't go very far. 'Cause you can't imagine if hospitals couldn't be more than 16 beds, it'd be crazy.

“That's what happened with mental health.”

And so, the first Trump administration created a waiver, states couldn't exempt themselves from this. That's a very practical thing you could be done in California, a practical way of getting more money into the system. I don't think it really is intractable.

I think you just need a sort of practical approach where you work through these problems. - So, last question, you're saying will a lot when I am governor, and you've argued that California's problems are the result of political choices and voters want change,

but if voters choose to stick with democratic leadership and you are behind, will you stay in California to help and do that or to camp to Texas or Florida like other wealthy Republicans? - No, no, no, no, I love California.

No, I love California, completely love it. I mean, in love with it, still, I get really excited,

driving around as I do and just seeing all these incredible things

that we have, the beauty of everything. It's just amazing, and it's not just the physical beauty and the weather and all these things and the other, there's a sort of spirit, I call it the rebel spirit.

“That's why we've created these amazing industries.”

And that's kind of rebelliousness that is very much, I don't know, I feel in tune with, I couldn't imagine being anywhere else. - All right, that you know where they hate us, 'cause they ain't us, that's why.

(laughing) Anyway, see, thank you so much, I really appreciate it. You're coming on and I hope I don't think it was too hard to, I wanna illuminate voters rather than just getting bites. - No, I appreciate it was really,

it was really good conversation, I appreciate it, thank you. - Today's show was produced by Nishat Keroa, Michelle Aloy, Katherine Millsop, Madeline Leplant Dooby, Megan Burney, and Kaylin Lynch.

Lissa Soap, and Julia Sharplevine.

“This episode was engineered by Alia Jackson Perez,”

and our theme music is by Tracodemix.

If you're already following the show,

you're living the California dream.

If not, you're paying $6 for gas.

“Go wherever you listen to podcasts search”

for on with Keroswisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to on with Keroswisher from Potion Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.

(upbeat music)