December 5, 2025 • 43 mins
Governor Newsom chats with Andrew Ross Sorkin in front of a live audience at the New York Times DealBook Summit in New York. Listen in as they discuss the future of the country, the state of the Democratic party and how to fight the Trump administration.
0:00 - The Democratic Party Is A Big Tent Party
3:26 - The Importance of Democratizing Our Economy
9:27 Standing Up For Free Elections
15:55 Social Media Strategy & The Patriot Shop
20:35 Trump's Future
23:47 Crony Capitalism
29:30 California As A Model Economy
35:32 Environmental Issues & China
38:41 The 2028 Nominee Should Be...
SUBSCRIBE NOW: https://linktr.ee/govgavinnewsom
Email: TIGNPod@gmail.com
Substack: Gavinnewsom
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Please welcome Andrew ross Orkin and his guest, Governor of California,
Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Gavin Newsom is here, everybody. Governor of California, Lulu, Governor,
mister beast. That's following, mister Beast. Yeah, I am so
glad you're here, and I just want to say the
reason that I wanted you to come here more than
anything else right now is I think we're in a
moment where the country is trying to figure out the
politics of the country, but in particular the Democratic Party
(00:31):
and the future of the Democratic Party and where it
all goes next. And this governor has become perhaps one
of the most vocal critics, frankly, of this president, often
mirroring his own language on social media. We'll talk about
it in his home state of California. Artificial intelligence, of
course booming, But you're also dealing with a crowd in
Silicon Valley who's moved I think in other directions, and
(00:53):
I want you to discuss all of that and in
Prop fifty and everything else. So welcome to deal book.
Thank you for me in here.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Good to be with everybody.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Let's start there. Let's just start at the beginning here
of the Democratic Party. You recently declared that the democ
product Party of old is no more, and I wanted
to know what you meant by that. I think this
was in the wake of Proposition fifties win in California,
and of course the wins in Virginia and New Jersey.
(01:24):
But why you think the Democratic Party of old is
not the same and what it looks like.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
I would say any contextual terms, that we're finally back
on our toes, not our back heels.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
We're finally on the offense.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
We're finally beginning to shape shift, and we're finally beginning
to fight. We've woken up, and as a consequence, we're
winning again. A year ago, we were all there and
ringing because we were a party that appeared weak, out
of touch, a party that was not fighting back, was
not asserting itself. And so from my perspective, I thought
(01:55):
November and what I represented in New Jersey in Virginia
would have represented many respects, but also in Pennsylvania and
Georgia and elsewhere, and certainly with Proposition fifty was demonstrable proof,
including last night, that our party is now back on
its toes and it's a party now that has got
more enthusiasm, and it's a party that I think is
more unified.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Okay, well you say unified, what does that party look like?
So there is a wealth tax proposed in California that
I think you are adamantly against. Yes, And we have
a mayor that's coming here in New York who would
like to have a wealth tax if he could. You
couldn't be more diametrically opposed.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Yeah, Well, I want to be a big ten party.
It's about addition, not subtraction.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
But this idea of a unifying theory of the case.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
I mean, I think we all want to be protected,
we all want to be respected, we all want to
be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental
values that I think define our party about social justice,
economic justice. I think we recognize it's important to focus
on growth but also focus on inclusion. We have predistribution Democrats.
We have redistribution democrats. Lies the dialectic and there and
(03:02):
lies the debate within the Democratic Party. We also have
Democrats that are representative of their districts, representative the people
that they represent. So much punitry has been done about,
well is the future of the Party of Mendami at
the same election that occurred, well as the future hold
on Virginia is the future.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
New Jersey is the future.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
So but which is it? And that's the question about
the unifying theory question, which is you could have a
big tent. But if the theory is of the case,
are so diametrically opposed, how split and broken is the party?
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Look, the parties knitting itself back together. We got slacked
in the last election, and there's been a lot of
forensic analysis, perhaps not enough about what happened.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Donald Trump crushed us in the last election.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
What do you think happened.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
I'm up to page twenty eight in my analysis of
what happened.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
But at the end of the day, you know, I
think we have to become.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
To give us a couple of the pages.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Now, look, I mean, look, you know, we could talk
about why Kamala lost, which is separate. I mean, it's
part derivative of the larger narrative. But issues around inflation, scars.
We don't talk enough about interest rates, We don't talk
about incumbency. Issues related you said, be beyond related, Israeli politics, immigration,
(04:20):
the border in particular. You can talk about all those
things not just one hundred and seven days. Not just
talk about Biden's determination lack thereof in terms of passing
the baton. But I think there's a broader narrative that
we often address. That is, we have to be more
culturally normal, we have to be a little less judgmental.
We have to have be a party that understands the
(04:41):
importance and power of the border substantively and politically.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
We have a party that I think needs.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
To design and develop a compelling economic vision for the
future where people feel included, to reconcile the fact that
if we don't democratize our economy, we're not going to
save democracy. I don't think it's healthy that we have
ten percent of people that own two thirds of the
wealth in this country. I don't think it's sustainable practice.
The folks watching mister Beast is proportionally thirty year olds,
(05:10):
the first generation in history not doing better than their parents.
There's some underlying issues here that have to be addressed.
We have an economy that is broken for too many people.
And I say that as someone that doesn't begrudge other
people's success. I do that as someone that believes not
in redistributive policies, believes in progressive tax policy, but is
(05:31):
mindful that businesses can't thrive in a world that's failing.
And I think that's foundationally and fundamentally what Trump understood.
It's what people like aoc Berniham and DOMI understand from
a narrative perspective. But the policies that shape that, I
think will also shape the comeback for the Democratic part.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Okay, but let me ask that about wealth taxes, because
it's just it's an easy one to discuss in certain ways.
You're not for a wealth tax and data.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Californian can't isolate yourself from the forty nine others, or
in a competitive environment, people have this simple luxury. Good
people of that status there already have two or three
homes outside the state.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
It's a simple issue. You've got to be pragmatic about it.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
Plus there's some simple questions that haven't been answered very simply,
is how the hell do you determine it is your
mark to market, where's your asset base? How you make
that determination in terms of just what the basic assessment is.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
We have one individual.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
That represents one labor union in the state of California
that has not collected one signature that is considering putting
on the ballot after he collects signatures a wealth tax
that vast majority of labor opposes, and almost everybody I
know opposes. So it's not something to be panicked about.
But it's part of the broader concern and narrative that's
(06:49):
developed in this country of the haves and have nots,
not just income and equality, but wealth inequality. And look,
it doesn't take much. You go back an old Plutarch comment. Well,
two plus thousand years ago. Plutarch was warning the Athenians
that the imbalance between the rich and the poor is
the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics. It's
(07:11):
so foundational, and it's off kilter now, and it has
to be addressed. And that's why I talk about growth
and inclusion, and I think.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
That's But how do you address it if it's not
if it's not for taxes.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Well, I'm around.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
We can get in many issues related to affordability and
reducing costs, not just subsidizing costs. I'll give you a
proof point of that. This is not an answer, but
it is a proof point. We just came out with
eleven dollars insulin. We're not subsidizing the cost of insulin.
We're manufacturing it, reducing costs, not subsidizing cost We just
(07:47):
came out with a new strategy to provide sixty billion
dollars of utility rebates in the state of California through
our capin Investment program, regionalizing our grid with other Western
states to lower costs, deal with curtailment issues, create more
stability on our grid. To also address that issue as
(08:08):
it relates to the broader issues for our party. Also,
I believe fundamentally that our interventions come too late. One
of the things that has come too late. But I'm
glad its moment is here. Interestingly because I'm rare on
my out there promoting with Ted Cruz is promoting.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
But Corey Booker and Ted Cruz absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
In the big beautiful bill, these baby bonds, that's good policy.
By the way, I did it four years ago, one
point nine billion dollars for three point four million students
going into kindergarten, getting child savings accounts up to fifteen
hundred dollars. That's about creating opportunities.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
About what's called some people are calling the Trump accounts.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
And well Trump is literally just you know, vandalizing it
by putting his name on it. And we can get
into broader issues there. But it's a good idea. And
you know, all these conversations are very familiar with people
are now talking about UBI mincom and all that. Now
it's moved to universal base basic capital and equity and
(09:07):
sovereign welfare.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
This is the conversation we need to start having because again,
we have got to democratize our economy. It is the
democracy cannot withstand this kind of disparity for long.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Let me ask you this. You're talking in a very
national way, and so I'm just going to go straight
at it. Politico says this about you. The headline admitted
Gavin Newsom is the twenty twenty eight front runner. For years,
Democrats and pundits have rolled their eyes at Gavin Newsom,
they say, but he's positioned better than anyone else for
the future of politics. Now what do you think of that?
(09:45):
I assume you'd like that.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Trying to sell links to political is what it sounds like. Look,
I'm humbled by that because it's rather remarkable.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
You were counted out.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Yeah, well fine, most of my life I have been
sat guy, you know, so used to it. But you
know what, I'm trying to meet this moment, and I'm
trying to be accountable to this moment.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
I'm not thinking.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
I know there's a lot of speculation about the future.
And I said to someone who asked me directly, so
have you ever thought about it? I said, I'd be lying.
I hate those politicians say I haven't thought about the
future in that respect of verse.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
How much are you thinking about it?
Speaker 1 (10:27):
That not.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
To the degree that you think perhaps others that are
more cynical. I really, I'm serious about this. For me,
it was all about twenty twenty five. It was about
finding fire with fire.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
It was about being accountable, not just rhetorically but substantively
to address what Donald Trump is trying to do to
this Country's trying to wrect this country. Tried to do
that on January sixth, try to like democracy on fire.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
He dialed for votes down there, said where's find me
eleven twelve thousand votes. The Secretary of State in Georgia.
He did the same thing when he said he's quote
unquote entitled to five seats.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
When he called Greg Abbott, he's trying to rig.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
The midterm elections in twenty twenty six before one vote
is cast, and what he expected is California would sit back,
maybe work to write an op ed, hoping that the
New York Times would run it to say what a
terrible thing this is. They did not, and he did
not expect us to go out and raise one hundred
and eighteen million dollars over a ninety day period and
(11:28):
put our Independent Redistricting Commission on a new status for
three year, temporary and transparent new maps in order to
counter what happened in Texas.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
That is critical. What's also critical is twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
You will not have and I don't you know. I
imagine half of you may just roll your eyes. I
believe this, in my cormayer, you will not have a
free and fair election as we know them today in
the United States of America if Speaker Jeffreys is not
sworn in plus now, I really believe that, sure, there'll
be elections. Competitive authoritarians love elections. Putin I think got
(12:08):
eighty seven point three percent. The runner up was a
four point three That's what I mean by competitive authoritarianism.
Ask folks in Hungary and Orbon, what's going on in Turkey.
That's the model for Trump. I don't think that. I
know that on the basis of a lot of evidence.
In fact, I saw in fact examples of that the
(12:28):
day of our election just a few weeks ago, where
Donald Trump set out bor TAC teams, border patrol tactical
units to Dodger Stadium to chill free expression, to chill
election turnout. He said the day of the election, before
one vote was cast, he said, this was a rigged election,
sent out his doj with no basis, no business to
be in there for a state ballot. He sent Greg
(12:52):
Bovino in his secret police that seemed to have taken
oaf in office to him, not the Constitution of the
United States to our campaign kick off at the Democracy Center,
to chill participation in our rally. And he federalized four
thousand National Guard and send seven hundred active duty Marines,
not overseas, but to the second largest city in America.
(13:15):
And they're still our federalized Guard, still there. Wake up
to what is going on in this country. It is
code read and I'm sure a lot of you are
fine with it because a lot of people have figured
it out.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
They know the game. State capitalism, crony capitalism, the Great Grift.
A lot of you are doing extraordinarily well. But one
of the things I'm trying.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
To do better is express my concern, highlight that with
more conviction and clarity, and also reinforce that we're about
to walk into the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary the
best of Greek democracy in the Roman Republic, this historical
values of our founding fathers in twenty twenty six, and
(14:00):
it's all on the line, and so I'm standing on
that line, and we're trying to push back.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Let me ask you this, and I think we're making progress.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
I'd asked readers of deal book if they had questions
for you, and here's a good one that came in
that actually matches the conversation I think you were just having.
And this relates to Prop. Fifty. This question said came
in and said, how is California's jerry mandering exercise with
the full support of the governor anything but a slippery slope?
(14:34):
Aren't there other solutions?
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Are there?
Speaker 3 (14:37):
We can hold hands, have a candlelighted visual. I mean,
that's the damned Democratic party that goes here.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
But I assume you're against Jerry Maddering.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Not only am I.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Against it, I was one of its champions for independent redistricting.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
And that's why I required in this ballot.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Inedititionve that we affirm our desired to have national independent redistricting.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
And by the way, the voters overwhelming these support it.
That but a temporary response to an emergency of Donald
Trump's making was appropriate.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
We maintained the Independent Redistricting Commission. We still maintain the
independent districts for everything but three elections for Congress, and
then it reverts back to its original form.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Final point. These are the first maps.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
In US history to go on the ballot, talk about transparency,
talk about democracy. Compare that to the maps who are
drafted and are currently being drafted in mar Lago up
there in Indiana and Missouri and North Carolina and will
be done quite literally in Marlago when DeSantis gets his
arms around them. That's the contrast. And again, we had
(15:44):
to fight fire with fire. It's not one hand tied
behind our back. We're trying to win an argument. These
guys are consolidating.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Me ask about fire.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
That's the difference.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Let me ask you about fire with fire. You have taken
coatrolling Trump and really using his words. I want to
just read you. This is a post on November twenty
eighth from you for me. Happy holidays to everyone except
the seriously demented Piggy who turned the Oval Office into
a revolving door for grifters and crooks. You go on
to say this clown slapped Tariff's attacks on the working man.
(16:14):
You go on to say that his dim wit avengers,
including cash Money, Patel, Dumb, Dumb, Pete, cosplay Christy, and
you go on and on and on. And my question
to you is about this rhetoric, because you have been
very critical of the way the president has spoken and
the rhetoric of this president, and here you are using
(16:36):
the exact same rhetoric.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
I need to wake everybody up. There is normalization of dedancy,
and it was becoming socialized normalized. You got Pravda, the
propaganda networks out there, the primetime lineup at Fox, just
going on and on and on, call someone the R
word or Piggy, and somehow it's just Trump being Trump.
There's nothing normal about this. He's a man child. It's
(16:58):
unbecoming of the President of United States. He's dressed up
as the Pope it's acting like he's Superman. This is
not normal.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
He's putting his face on Mount Rushmore. He sends these
all tweet caps. These are verbatim what he's doing. I've
tried to.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Put a mirror to what the hell's going on in
this country.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
This is not normal behavior, and you know what, I
appreciate that, and it's working in this respect.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
You know, it was most defended.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
I think there were eleven to fifteen Fox News pieces
on this disgusted. They were Newsomon's wife who's here, Thank you, Jen,
she said, wash his mouth out with soap, saying about
me for these tweets without any situational awareness. They have
said a damn word about the president of the United States.
So look, I think you had, mister Beeste and I
(17:48):
love that he was just on. He's all about communication,
he's all about attention. Trump is an exceptionally gifted communicator,
terrible order, exceptionally gifted community cater and repetition matters, and
what I'm trying to parrot is an iterative style. Put
that mirror up, but also test some theories, and I, uh,
(18:12):
forgive me, I think it's working a little bit, and
not all of these I there's a kill switch.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
For me, not everyone.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Well, I was going to say, what is not all
of them? I sometimes, Yeah, I don't know what you're selling.
You said coming soon. You're selling new knee pads for
all CEOs, universities and GOP bending the knee to Donald Trump.
And you're actually selling these neepads.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
We raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, by the way. Uh.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
They're available today, by the way, some of you may
need to buy them in bulk.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
But we have the new Trump signature series neepads on
my Patriot site, which is an actual real site.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
I encourage you, if you're.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
Board, to google it right now. And they were sold out.
Just like our universities. We're selling out, just like our
law firms are selling out. Just like a lot of CEOs.
We're selling out, selling out this country, our future, our republic,
selling out my kids, your grandkids. So there's method to it.
And I mean, it breaks my heart to see these
(19:20):
law firms sell out like this, breaks my heart to
see I mean, President she is out there going my gosh,
Trump's flattery. I mean ten percent of Intel, fifteen percent
at AMD, fifteen percent in Nvidia, emped materials, golden shares
at US Steel. What the hell happened to Free Enterprise?
(19:40):
A healthy horse pulling a sturdy wagon. What's going on
with this country? What's going on with the country?
Speaker 1 (19:46):
The President United States shows up, but the one group
that shows up before them are members of his family
to make sure they get the golf course approved to
use the terrace's leverage to get personal deals done. Towers
three or four different countries. What is the one thing
that has come in all his overseas? This meme coin?
Speaker 3 (20:03):
The crypto scam world live the Pardons on a daily basis,
It seems this is this is not America. It's not
the America I grew up in. It's not America I
want my kids growing up in. So we got to
call this out. And I know it's painful for some
because you know, to be called out.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
And I don't mean to be a fan. I don't
want to.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Be this guy, but it disgusted me, and so I
thought the knee pads were appropriate.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Let me ask you a related question. President Trump on
his website is selling hats that say twenty twenty eight
on them. Do you believe that he has any ambition
to be the president beyond twenty twenty eight well.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
Ambition, yes, but I think he recognizes time of life
is catching up with him, even though he can't remember
exactly why he went in for an MRI, and so
I think his regime will be measured in years, not decades.
God forbid, he was ten twenty years younger. That would,
(21:11):
I don't believe be the case. I take Seve Bannon
quite literally. I take him at his word on this.
By the way, I had Steve on my podcast. I
was in the Oval Office incident link just as an
aside with President Trump a few months ago. He goes
one of the first Democrats down with.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Them almost ninety minutes and one of the things, I'm
sitting there at the resolutey. He turns and he says, Hey,
who's that behind you? I I thought it was someone
walked in. It was a beautiful oil painting of FDR.
And I literally looked and I went, oh, God, here
we go. I said three terms. He goes, now, what
about four?
Speaker 3 (21:45):
He's trolling everybody, but he's also bringing world leaders in
to give them the twenty twenty eight hat.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Heck, this is how serious he was about avoiding.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
The government shutdown that he not only canceled the meetings
with Jeffreys and Schumer felt pressure to get the meeting
back on.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
And what do you do. He didn't invite the press in.
He just had a photo with the twenty twenty eight
hat to troll them on the desk. So I take
him more seriously than most.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
But for me, what I'm worry about again is his
ability to manipulate the twenty twenty eight election, even twenty
twenty eight, even though he's not on the ballot. That's
why it's so important that we win the House of
Representatives in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
It is foundational.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
What do you think he's going to do?
Speaker 1 (22:36):
What is he going to do? He's pay attention, We've
seen them.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
He's put American reverse. He wants just to bring us
back to pre nineteen sixties world. We've seen it across
the spectrum and that's not atypical. Republicans broadly has been
support of that agenda, but he's doing it with more ferocity.
And voting rights, civil rights, ALGBTQ rights, women's rights, and
the like. But when it comes to the issues of
voter id when it comes to the issues of voter
and taker when it comes to the issues of masked
(23:03):
men being in around polling places.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
When it comes to the issue as he's doing in
January quick response teams, did you pay attention to this?
He announced quick response teams.
Speaker 3 (23:13):
In every state in the United States of America so
that he can federalize the National Guard. Think about that
as we come to the elections in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
It's a series of things.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
It's not one thing he's doing getting rid of vote
by mail. It's a series of things that concern me,
and that stacking creates a lot of stress from my perspective.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Let me ask you a different question, which is, for
a very long time, people specifically after the Silicon Valley
were very supportive of you, and they were very supportive
of Democrats, and they were very supportive of California. And
there has been a big move a foot, as you know,
out of the state, either either out of the state
or at least their politics have shifted markedly. So you
(23:59):
may have of Sam Altman or Mark Zuckerberg in your state,
but effectively they are also at the state dinner with
this president. What do you think has happened here?
Speaker 1 (24:12):
Well, they all moved back into the state.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
I mean I live in the state thirty two of
the top fifty market cap AI companies. I mean in
the Bay Area almost dominantly disproportionately. We dominate and fusing quantum,
We dominate in robotics, we dominate in space, we dominate
in all these future technology, including R and D, in
nuclear and of course we have eighteen percent of the
world's R and D in my state. Germany about twenty
(24:36):
one percent, China twenty two percent.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
We're eighteen percent of the world's R and D.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
You saw Tesla move their world R and D headquarters
into Silicon Valley at HP Enterprises old headquarters.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
This is after Elon had left, but all.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
He left with was a bag of cash so he
can avoid capital gains.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
I mean he continued to grow Tesla. In fact, you
can go and watch the press conference we had a
few months later when he brought the R and D
headquarters back where he made the case, we've added ten
thousand jobs from Tesla since we quote unquote moved the company.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
So what is your relation, by the way, what's your
relationship with like with these people now and how do
you keep them in your state? And yet they're on
the other side of your own politics.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
They are and they aren't. It's very situational with a
lot of these guys. A lot of the folks that
Well described moved towards Trump, sort of the Sacks types.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Watch that space, you say, watch it, What do you mean?
Speaker 1 (25:34):
New York Times did a masterpiece.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
It was a masterclass analysis talk about just self dealing.
Come on, I mean cryptos are I mean All In podcasts,
by the way, is you know, great podcasts.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
Not a knock, but you know one of his co hosts.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
Is in business with Trump Junior, who's in business with
Laura Ingram On an new spac they go so, well,
none of this is normal. They announced the big idea
at the All In Podcasts. I mean this is this
is a different level of griff than we've ever experienced
in our lifetime.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
And I say this, I ask you one question, but
I say this, those guys.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
Were already on the spectrum, libertarian spectrum already.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
A lot of these guys were already there. Most of
the other folks. I think it's a little bit more.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
I don't want to say the word transactional, but as fiduciaries,
I guess.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
I'll be kind okay, let me ask you. They are
doing what they feel they need to do, so I
don't see it as a big shift, as perhaps others do,
and that's on the basis of very close relationships, as
you suggest, going back decades.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I ask question because you mentioned David Zachs. The New
York Times had a big piece about David Zachs. A
lot of folks in the valley thought that David Zachs
is doing a great thing by being in this role,
and this is one of these roles. I'm just gonna
give you the position. I'm curious what you take is.
The argument is that if you're going to have experts
in these fields, invariably there are going to be some
kinds of conflicts. Do you think it's been done better before?
(27:14):
I ask because there are people who go back and
look at people who were Democrats. By the way, a
lot of people in google Land and lots of other
parts of Silicon Valley that were very close to the
Obama administration years ago, and people had said that they
were too close. And I don't know if you think
that that's a fair question, or you think that they're
even in the same league.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
I'm not gonna look if you're suggesting that that, I
just want to be careful about this notion of sort
of you know, equivalency. There's nothing equivalent about what's.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Going on in the United States right now as it
relates to cronic capitalism and self dealing, period full stop.
And I mean, we can get into two hundred and
thirty million dollars demand on the DOJ. We can get
into the four undred million dollars Katari jet that includes
a billion dollars of your money where we cut food
stamps to pay for a billion dollars to retrofit that
four hundred million dollar plan. We can get to the
(28:10):
cryptos and the mean coins. We can get to the
resorts and the towers and the golf courses. We can
get into the children of all of these guys from
I mean from Witkoff, sorty two year old Ai Zr.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
Who had no experience and rather cryptos are in his
own right.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
The two billion dollars the binance part in all this.
This is a different level. If you want to compare
that to someone who resigns or takes a leave of
absence from Google to work on open source for the
Biden administration or the Obama administration.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
I think that's not the same thing what I'm arguing for.
David's a very bright guy.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
I'm know you about that, But what the New York
Times highlighted was the conflicts at a scale. He hasn't
done a blind trust, he hasn't pulled away from all
of these investments, and I just think there needs to
be levels of ethics that are demanded of these leaders.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
I want that expertise. I'm with you on that.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
That said, there's so much self dealing and that entire
ecosystem is benefited from it. California is benefited from it,
but they do not think it's healthy for capitalism.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
I do not think it's helping for free enterprise.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Let me ask you a question about your own prospects
outside of California. California, like New York, is not always
the most beloved state by the rest of the country,
and they look at some of these states as aberrations
are on the ends. They physically are on the ends
of the country, And I wonder when you look at
(29:43):
your own prospects, I think it's clear that your ability
to communicate is one of your great attributes. But there's
a lot of people who would look in California and
they look at the debt in California, They look at
some of the issues that have taken place with homeless
which you know about costs home the Prop forty seven
(30:05):
housing costs and the like, and companies and others leaving
the state, and they look and go, you know what,
if we're going to have a guy managing the country,
California is not the example we want to follow.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Well, I mean, we went from the sixth largest economy
the fourth largest economy four point.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
One trillion dollars a year.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
We have more Fortune five hundred companies, and we've ever
had in the last two decades. Went from forty eight
to now our forty nine now to fifty eight Fortune
five hundred companies. You brought up Sam Altman a moment ago,
the largest market cap private company.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
In world history.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
He decided just a few weeks ago we're to headquarter
in the state of California. Were more scientists, engineers, more
Nobel laureates, venture capital over one hundred and six billion
dollars this year.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Sixty eight percent of that.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Invested back into the state of California, finest system of
higher education in the world, a conveyor belt for talent
like no other.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
I mentioned the R and D investments.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
The future happens in my state first, where America is
coming attraction.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
That said, I also will reinforced the obvious. Where else.
The dominant manufacturing of in the United States of America
four and five point six billion dollars thirteen point nine
percent of the US manufacturing Compare that to Rondo centis
two point eight percent. In Florida, where the dominant egg
state sixty two point one billion dollars. Forestry, hunting jobs, eg. Jobs.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
You talk about farmers and ranchers. You're talking about my
home state of California. The state of California has seen
population increase. We had a Treasury secretary here who needs
to actually get some facts.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
You challenged them on some California saw population increased last
year of one hundred and one hundred and five thousand,
the prior year forty nine thousand, the prior before that.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
You got update your talking points. There's California derangement syndrome.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
It really is, and I'm pretty proud of it.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
And I'm also proud of the fact that, in the
spirit of New York Times, the abundance agenda and the
good work that as I was doing. We've never tackled
our housing crisis more aggressively than we tackled it this
last year. We've never tackled our homeless and mental health
crisis more than we have in the last few years.
Point four for five percent increase, less than one percent
(32:17):
in unsheltered homelessness.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Forty other states saw significantly higher.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
Increases and homeless I'm not happy about that, but we're
finally making progress. So in many ways, I think there's
a story to tell, and I'm not arguing for my
own case, but it's a story that I think a
lot of Californians are proud to tell.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
I want to go back to your You've mentioned Grift
a couple of times, and corporate leaders doing things to
placate what you think of as this administration. You mentioned
law firms and others. I talked to us Sire Chary
Scott Best early this morning. We're talking about David Ellison
in Paramount. It's a deal, by the way, that would
likely happen in your state, depending on what ultimately happens.
(32:59):
I don't know if you want to go see Rush
hour four or not. That's on your I.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
Liked I liked one, two and three, So I'm a
Chris Tucker fan.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
So but my question to you is do you blame
the businesses for trying to curry the favor or do
you blame the administration or the other political party for
incentivizing or creating this opportunity if you think that's the case, Look.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
I think trumps dotted up. You got to kiss the ring,
the fealty to the dear leader. It's the likes of
which I've never seen. This guy sees himself.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
But if you were, if you were Tim Cook, and
I'm serious, if you were Tim Cook, under the circumstance
he's in your state. Under the circumstances he is in
which is well, that's he manufactures a lot of stuff
in China, and he was worried about the tariffs.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
He was able to make a phone call that no
small business in my state could have made. I mean,
how about my farmers and ranchers in California. How about
all these small medium sized businesses that can't pay up
the phone and get an exemption on their tariffs.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
So, yeah, it breaks my heart a little. Bits. That's
a version of crony. That is by definition crony capitalism.
It is the definition of it.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
But what is he Back to the generous analysis, that's
called being a fiduciary doing what he needs to do on.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Behalf of his shareholders. That's his job. So do I
begrudge that, Yes, But do I begrudge him? Not as much.
But what I do begrudge is.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
The tone and tenor that this administration is set and
the expectations they've set that if you don't do the bidding,
you don't write the check, you don't get the contract,
directing contracts, changing procurement, sole source on this soul source.
That this is a different level than we've ever seen
in the past.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Some would argue, okay, it's just more transparent.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
Yes, it's at a different scale than we've seen in
the past. And for those that are complicit in participatory
in that beyond their fiduciary responsibility, that's where I have
a real problem.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
We talked to Dario Modi today and we also talked
to Mary Bara, and you're going to see a connection
between the two and just a moment. One of the
things that's fascinating in the AI space is that there
are states, including California, that would like to regulate that
have in artificial intelligence, as you know, and for a
very long time California regulated fuel standards, efficiency standards. You
(35:34):
see how we're connecting these too?
Speaker 1 (35:35):
Rest with you, Okay, that's why you're interviewing and.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
And here we are. And it's interesting. I think if
you're the governor of the state, you might say to
yourself states rights, we want to do this this way.
If you become the president of the United States, do
you want to do it federally? Well, and what's the
better approach.
Speaker 3 (35:56):
There was a president of the United States by the
name of Ronald Reagan whose approach was in nineteen sixty seven,
to advance an effort to regulate tailpipe emissions, created the
California a Resources Board. It was caughtified by the Clean
Air Act in nineteen seventy by Republican Richard Nixon.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
Did so in response to the SMAG crisis.
Speaker 3 (36:17):
In Los Angeles, businesses leaving people leaving that couldn't do
business in my own state, and so they began the
modern environmental movement, particularly as it relates to.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Issues of emissions.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
What Mary did with respect I say this because I've
worked with her in the past. She worked behind our
back to work with Republicans in Congress and Trump to
gut that leadership, going back to Ronald Reagan through a
process called cra with Senator.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
Thune, and she lied about it. She worked behind our
back to gut that. Today.
Speaker 3 (36:54):
She or her representatives are back in the Oval Office
today celebrating the fact they're going to increase costs for
fuel and increase subsidies for polluters by rolling back Joe
Biden's fuel efficiency standards, celebrated by big Oil that just
(37:19):
got eighteen billion dollars in subsidies Big Oil and Gas
in the.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
Big beautiful bill.
Speaker 3 (37:25):
That will put us further behind our number one competitor,
China in terms of a global market.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
And so I'm not happy about that as a Californian.
But if someone just.
Speaker 3 (37:38):
Came back from Belem, came back from cop and everywhere
you went there was a BYD, I mean, these guys
are flooding the zone.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
China understands the opportunity.
Speaker 3 (37:47):
It's about markets, it's about supply chains, and it's about influence.
They're doing in Latin America, South America, increasingly in Europe,
and we are doubling down on stupid Here in the
United States, seventy percent of the EV market is coming
out of China. Now they're three x the manufacturing of
automobiles that we are in the United States of America
(38:08):
about thirty one plus million vehicles to our ten. And
it's the tech stack where they're dominating. It's batteries, it's software,
it's the future, it's mobility. And so yeah, I'm a
little ticked off that these guys want to pave over
the old cowpath as opposed to transform the industry and
the technology and lower costs for consumers and not have
(38:32):
the socialized cost of pollution and lousy health as a
byproduct of it.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
We've only got a minute, and I have a final question,
and it's from a longtime deal Book reader who asks this,
if you are not the Democrats presidential nomination, why is
so much focus on this twenty twenty eight Who what
does he want to be the nominee assuming they can
win the election.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
Someone who is a hard headed pragmatist, someone that understands
we all need to be and all need to love meeting,
someone who is a repair of the breach and you know,
the spirit of father cause, Isaiah, someone needs to be
a repair of the breach. We're polarized and traumatized.
Speaker 1 (39:11):
This is exhausting, the guy literally calling people the R word, piggy.
It's just not this this, this is We're better than this. Uh.
The reason I started my podcast and my first guest
was Charlie Kirk to show respect people.
Speaker 3 (39:28):
I disagree with, and Bannon, who I had on Nike Gingrids,
who led my recall campaign. Divorce is not an option.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
We have to define the terms of our future. And
and so.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
This notion of all being better off, we're all better
off is the kind of attributes that I pray that
our nominee busy.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
There's not a name. You think Kamala Harris could do it.
There's there's again, there are there's literally this year, Wes Moore, all.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Of them, they're all yeah, there and and they'll be
the surprise, mister beast me run. You know, we'll see
if what's the moment. I think right now, the obstacles
away in the sort of the stoic frame, the impediment
action becomes the action. Trump is so dominant situationally, getting
back to twenty twenty six, I know we all want
(40:14):
to pay that positive alternative beyond Trump, and everybody's right
to have that conversation that.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
Jd Vance, by the way, in your mind too, I'm
not a huge fan of his. No, No, I'm saying,
is jd Vance the person you think that you'd be
running against?
Speaker 1 (40:26):
Well, I think Trump's not sure. Trump will determine that.
I mean Trump Trump, he doesn't care if he's the
heel of the hero, cares that he's the star, and
he's not going to walk away. He's going to rig
that nomination.
Speaker 3 (40:40):
And you heard him yesterday even in the Oval office
or in the academy, and he was saying, well.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Is it Rubio, is Advance is advanced Ruby? I mean,
he's already playing around with this.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
So but he'll make that determination ultimately an extension again
of his third term. If because of time of life
he can't extend it and the Supreme Court can't extend
it for him, well you got one.
Speaker 2 (41:04):
More, I got one more, I got a fund.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
Now it's always the last question again, No.
Speaker 2 (41:08):
It's actually not that, it's not that hard. The question is,
if you are not the governor and you're not the
presidential candidate, what do you actually want to do.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
Oh my god, look at me.
Speaker 3 (41:19):
I'm physiologically, I'm changing, I'm my arms across well.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
I remember I people don't know this about me. I
don't know much about me.
Speaker 3 (41:26):
It is remarkable that what's perceived versus reality and God,
for I sound like a politician.
Speaker 1 (41:32):
Actually have a book coming out, young man in a hurry.
Speaker 3 (41:35):
And again speaking of purchasing, you can buy it in bulk.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
It's be out in February.
Speaker 3 (41:42):
But to sort of demystify all this, February twenty third
the But I say that to make this point.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
That I'm a small business guy.
Speaker 3 (42:01):
I started right out of college pen to paper, one
part time employee, Pat Kelly, opened a little business with
literally one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars thirteen investors.
I built that restaurants, hotels, wineries. We've got about a
thousand employees, twenty three little businesses.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
I say that not to impress.
Speaker 3 (42:18):
Any of you, but impressed upon you my passion for entrepreneurialism,
my passion for risk taking, free enterprise.
Speaker 1 (42:26):
And so I'm still that guy.
Speaker 3 (42:29):
So for me, you answer that question, that's my backup plan,
that's my default. But I'm also deeply committed to public
service and deeply committed. However, that manifests even if it's
not an elected office.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
And I'll close with a Justice Brandise quote, why not
when in doubt? Justice Brandise?
Speaker 3 (42:47):
He said, in a democracy, the most important office is
not governor, mayor president. In a democracy, the most important
office is office of citizen. So it's in that spirit
of citizenship that I look forward of the future as well.
Speaker 2 (43:01):
Governor Newsom, thank you, thank you very very much, Thank
you very very much, really appreciate it.
Please welcome Andrew ross Orkin and his guest, Governor of California,
Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Gavin Newsom is here, everybody. Governor of California, Lulu, Governor,
mister beast. That's following, mister Beast. Yeah, I am so
glad you're here, and I just want to say the
reason that I wanted you to come here more than
anything else right now is I think we're in a
moment where the country is trying to figure out the
politics of the country, but in particular the Democratic Party
(00:31):
and the future of the Democratic Party and where it
all goes next. And this governor has become perhaps one
of the most vocal critics, frankly, of this president, often
mirroring his own language on social media. We'll talk about
it in his home state of California. Artificial intelligence, of
course booming, But you're also dealing with a crowd in
Silicon Valley who's moved I think in other directions, and
(00:53):
I want you to discuss all of that and in
Prop fifty and everything else. So welcome to deal book.
Thank you for me in here.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Good to be with everybody.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Let's start there. Let's just start at the beginning here
of the Democratic Party. You recently declared that the democ
product Party of old is no more, and I wanted
to know what you meant by that. I think this
was in the wake of Proposition fifties win in California,
and of course the wins in Virginia and New Jersey.
(01:24):
But why you think the Democratic Party of old is
not the same and what it looks like.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
I would say any contextual terms, that we're finally back
on our toes, not our back heels.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
We're finally on the offense.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
We're finally beginning to shape shift, and we're finally beginning
to fight. We've woken up, and as a consequence, we're
winning again. A year ago, we were all there and
ringing because we were a party that appeared weak, out
of touch, a party that was not fighting back, was
not asserting itself. And so from my perspective, I thought
(01:55):
November and what I represented in New Jersey in Virginia
would have represented many respects, but also in Pennsylvania and
Georgia and elsewhere, and certainly with Proposition fifty was demonstrable proof,
including last night, that our party is now back on
its toes and it's a party now that has got
more enthusiasm, and it's a party that I think is
more unified.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Okay, well you say unified, what does that party look like?
So there is a wealth tax proposed in California that
I think you are adamantly against. Yes, And we have
a mayor that's coming here in New York who would
like to have a wealth tax if he could. You
couldn't be more diametrically opposed.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Yeah, Well, I want to be a big ten party.
It's about addition, not subtraction.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
But this idea of a unifying theory of the case.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
I mean, I think we all want to be protected,
we all want to be respected, we all want to
be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental
values that I think define our party about social justice,
economic justice. I think we recognize it's important to focus
on growth but also focus on inclusion. We have predistribution Democrats.
We have redistribution democrats. Lies the dialectic and there and
(03:02):
lies the debate within the Democratic Party. We also have
Democrats that are representative of their districts, representative the people
that they represent. So much punitry has been done about,
well is the future of the Party of Mendami at
the same election that occurred, well as the future hold
on Virginia is the future.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
New Jersey is the future.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
So but which is it? And that's the question about
the unifying theory question, which is you could have a
big tent. But if the theory is of the case,
are so diametrically opposed, how split and broken is the party?
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Look, the parties knitting itself back together. We got slacked
in the last election, and there's been a lot of
forensic analysis, perhaps not enough about what happened.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Donald Trump crushed us in the last election.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
What do you think happened.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
I'm up to page twenty eight in my analysis of
what happened.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
But at the end of the day, you know, I
think we have to become.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
To give us a couple of the pages.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Now, look, I mean, look, you know, we could talk
about why Kamala lost, which is separate. I mean, it's
part derivative of the larger narrative. But issues around inflation, scars.
We don't talk enough about interest rates, We don't talk
about incumbency. Issues related you said, be beyond related, Israeli politics, immigration,
(04:20):
the border in particular. You can talk about all those
things not just one hundred and seven days. Not just
talk about Biden's determination lack thereof in terms of passing
the baton. But I think there's a broader narrative that
we often address. That is, we have to be more
culturally normal, we have to be a little less judgmental.
We have to have be a party that understands the
(04:41):
importance and power of the border substantively and politically.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
We have a party that I think needs.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
To design and develop a compelling economic vision for the
future where people feel included, to reconcile the fact that
if we don't democratize our economy, we're not going to
save democracy. I don't think it's healthy that we have
ten percent of people that own two thirds of the
wealth in this country. I don't think it's sustainable practice.
The folks watching mister Beast is proportionally thirty year olds,
(05:10):
the first generation in history not doing better than their parents.
There's some underlying issues here that have to be addressed.
We have an economy that is broken for too many people.
And I say that as someone that doesn't begrudge other
people's success. I do that as someone that believes not
in redistributive policies, believes in progressive tax policy, but is
(05:31):
mindful that businesses can't thrive in a world that's failing.
And I think that's foundationally and fundamentally what Trump understood.
It's what people like aoc Berniham and DOMI understand from
a narrative perspective. But the policies that shape that, I
think will also shape the comeback for the Democratic part.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Okay, but let me ask that about wealth taxes, because
it's just it's an easy one to discuss in certain ways.
You're not for a wealth tax and data.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Californian can't isolate yourself from the forty nine others, or
in a competitive environment, people have this simple luxury. Good
people of that status there already have two or three
homes outside the state.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
It's a simple issue. You've got to be pragmatic about it.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
Plus there's some simple questions that haven't been answered very simply,
is how the hell do you determine it is your
mark to market, where's your asset base? How you make
that determination in terms of just what the basic assessment is.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
We have one individual.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
That represents one labor union in the state of California
that has not collected one signature that is considering putting
on the ballot after he collects signatures a wealth tax
that vast majority of labor opposes, and almost everybody I
know opposes. So it's not something to be panicked about.
But it's part of the broader concern and narrative that's
(06:49):
developed in this country of the haves and have nots,
not just income and equality, but wealth inequality. And look,
it doesn't take much. You go back an old Plutarch comment. Well,
two plus thousand years ago. Plutarch was warning the Athenians
that the imbalance between the rich and the poor is
the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics. It's
(07:11):
so foundational, and it's off kilter now, and it has
to be addressed. And that's why I talk about growth
and inclusion, and I think.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
That's But how do you address it if it's not
if it's not for taxes.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Well, I'm around.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
We can get in many issues related to affordability and
reducing costs, not just subsidizing costs. I'll give you a
proof point of that. This is not an answer, but
it is a proof point. We just came out with
eleven dollars insulin. We're not subsidizing the cost of insulin.
We're manufacturing it, reducing costs, not subsidizing cost We just
(07:47):
came out with a new strategy to provide sixty billion
dollars of utility rebates in the state of California through
our capin Investment program, regionalizing our grid with other Western
states to lower costs, deal with curtailment issues, create more
stability on our grid. To also address that issue as
(08:08):
it relates to the broader issues for our party. Also,
I believe fundamentally that our interventions come too late. One
of the things that has come too late. But I'm
glad its moment is here. Interestingly because I'm rare on
my out there promoting with Ted Cruz is promoting.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
But Corey Booker and Ted Cruz absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
In the big beautiful bill, these baby bonds, that's good policy.
By the way, I did it four years ago, one
point nine billion dollars for three point four million students
going into kindergarten, getting child savings accounts up to fifteen
hundred dollars. That's about creating opportunities.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
About what's called some people are calling the Trump accounts.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
And well Trump is literally just you know, vandalizing it
by putting his name on it. And we can get
into broader issues there. But it's a good idea. And
you know, all these conversations are very familiar with people
are now talking about UBI mincom and all that. Now
it's moved to universal base basic capital and equity and
(09:07):
sovereign welfare.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
This is the conversation we need to start having because again,
we have got to democratize our economy. It is the
democracy cannot withstand this kind of disparity for long.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Let me ask you this. You're talking in a very
national way, and so I'm just going to go straight
at it. Politico says this about you. The headline admitted
Gavin Newsom is the twenty twenty eight front runner. For years,
Democrats and pundits have rolled their eyes at Gavin Newsom,
they say, but he's positioned better than anyone else for
the future of politics. Now what do you think of that?
(09:45):
I assume you'd like that.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Trying to sell links to political is what it sounds like. Look,
I'm humbled by that because it's rather remarkable.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
You were counted out.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Yeah, well fine, most of my life I have been
sat guy, you know, so used to it. But you
know what, I'm trying to meet this moment, and I'm
trying to be accountable to this moment.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
I'm not thinking.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
I know there's a lot of speculation about the future.
And I said to someone who asked me directly, so
have you ever thought about it? I said, I'd be lying.
I hate those politicians say I haven't thought about the
future in that respect of verse.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
How much are you thinking about it?
Speaker 1 (10:27):
That not.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
To the degree that you think perhaps others that are
more cynical. I really, I'm serious about this. For me,
it was all about twenty twenty five. It was about
finding fire with fire.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
It was about being accountable, not just rhetorically but substantively
to address what Donald Trump is trying to do to
this Country's trying to wrect this country. Tried to do
that on January sixth, try to like democracy on fire.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
He dialed for votes down there, said where's find me
eleven twelve thousand votes. The Secretary of State in Georgia.
He did the same thing when he said he's quote
unquote entitled to five seats.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
When he called Greg Abbott, he's trying to rig.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
The midterm elections in twenty twenty six before one vote
is cast, and what he expected is California would sit back,
maybe work to write an op ed, hoping that the
New York Times would run it to say what a
terrible thing this is. They did not, and he did
not expect us to go out and raise one hundred
and eighteen million dollars over a ninety day period and
(11:28):
put our Independent Redistricting Commission on a new status for
three year, temporary and transparent new maps in order to
counter what happened in Texas.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
That is critical. What's also critical is twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
You will not have and I don't you know. I
imagine half of you may just roll your eyes. I
believe this, in my cormayer, you will not have a
free and fair election as we know them today in
the United States of America if Speaker Jeffreys is not
sworn in plus now, I really believe that, sure, there'll
be elections. Competitive authoritarians love elections. Putin I think got
(12:08):
eighty seven point three percent. The runner up was a
four point three That's what I mean by competitive authoritarianism.
Ask folks in Hungary and Orbon, what's going on in Turkey.
That's the model for Trump. I don't think that. I
know that on the basis of a lot of evidence.
In fact, I saw in fact examples of that the
(12:28):
day of our election just a few weeks ago, where
Donald Trump set out bor TAC teams, border patrol tactical
units to Dodger Stadium to chill free expression, to chill
election turnout. He said the day of the election, before
one vote was cast, he said, this was a rigged election,
sent out his doj with no basis, no business to
be in there for a state ballot. He sent Greg
(12:52):
Bovino in his secret police that seemed to have taken
oaf in office to him, not the Constitution of the
United States to our campaign kick off at the Democracy Center,
to chill participation in our rally. And he federalized four
thousand National Guard and send seven hundred active duty Marines,
not overseas, but to the second largest city in America.
(13:15):
And they're still our federalized Guard, still there. Wake up
to what is going on in this country. It is
code read and I'm sure a lot of you are
fine with it because a lot of people have figured
it out.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
They know the game. State capitalism, crony capitalism, the Great Grift.
A lot of you are doing extraordinarily well. But one
of the things I'm trying.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
To do better is express my concern, highlight that with
more conviction and clarity, and also reinforce that we're about
to walk into the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary the
best of Greek democracy in the Roman Republic, this historical
values of our founding fathers in twenty twenty six, and
(14:00):
it's all on the line, and so I'm standing on
that line, and we're trying to push back.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Let me ask you this, and I think we're making progress.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
I'd asked readers of deal book if they had questions
for you, and here's a good one that came in
that actually matches the conversation I think you were just having.
And this relates to Prop. Fifty. This question said came
in and said, how is California's jerry mandering exercise with
the full support of the governor anything but a slippery slope?
(14:34):
Aren't there other solutions?
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Are there?
Speaker 3 (14:37):
We can hold hands, have a candlelighted visual. I mean,
that's the damned Democratic party that goes here.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
But I assume you're against Jerry Maddering.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Not only am I.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Against it, I was one of its champions for independent redistricting.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
And that's why I required in this ballot.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Inedititionve that we affirm our desired to have national independent redistricting.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
And by the way, the voters overwhelming these support it.
That but a temporary response to an emergency of Donald
Trump's making was appropriate.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
We maintained the Independent Redistricting Commission. We still maintain the
independent districts for everything but three elections for Congress, and
then it reverts back to its original form.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Final point. These are the first maps.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
In US history to go on the ballot, talk about transparency,
talk about democracy. Compare that to the maps who are
drafted and are currently being drafted in mar Lago up
there in Indiana and Missouri and North Carolina and will
be done quite literally in Marlago when DeSantis gets his
arms around them. That's the contrast. And again, we had
(15:44):
to fight fire with fire. It's not one hand tied
behind our back. We're trying to win an argument. These
guys are consolidating.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Me ask about fire.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
That's the difference.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Let me ask you about fire with fire. You have taken
coatrolling Trump and really using his words. I want to
just read you. This is a post on November twenty
eighth from you for me. Happy holidays to everyone except
the seriously demented Piggy who turned the Oval Office into
a revolving door for grifters and crooks. You go on
to say this clown slapped Tariff's attacks on the working man.
(16:14):
You go on to say that his dim wit avengers,
including cash Money, Patel, Dumb, Dumb, Pete, cosplay Christy, and
you go on and on and on. And my question
to you is about this rhetoric, because you have been
very critical of the way the president has spoken and
the rhetoric of this president, and here you are using
(16:36):
the exact same rhetoric.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
I need to wake everybody up. There is normalization of dedancy,
and it was becoming socialized normalized. You got Pravda, the
propaganda networks out there, the primetime lineup at Fox, just
going on and on and on, call someone the R
word or Piggy, and somehow it's just Trump being Trump.
There's nothing normal about this. He's a man child. It's
(16:58):
unbecoming of the President of United States. He's dressed up
as the Pope it's acting like he's Superman. This is
not normal.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
He's putting his face on Mount Rushmore. He sends these
all tweet caps. These are verbatim what he's doing. I've
tried to.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Put a mirror to what the hell's going on in
this country.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
This is not normal behavior, and you know what, I
appreciate that, and it's working in this respect.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
You know, it was most defended.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
I think there were eleven to fifteen Fox News pieces
on this disgusted. They were Newsomon's wife who's here, Thank you, Jen,
she said, wash his mouth out with soap, saying about
me for these tweets without any situational awareness. They have
said a damn word about the president of the United States.
So look, I think you had, mister Beeste and I
(17:48):
love that he was just on. He's all about communication,
he's all about attention. Trump is an exceptionally gifted communicator,
terrible order, exceptionally gifted community cater and repetition matters, and
what I'm trying to parrot is an iterative style. Put
that mirror up, but also test some theories, and I, uh,
(18:12):
forgive me, I think it's working a little bit, and
not all of these I there's a kill switch.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
For me, not everyone.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Well, I was going to say, what is not all
of them? I sometimes, Yeah, I don't know what you're selling.
You said coming soon. You're selling new knee pads for
all CEOs, universities and GOP bending the knee to Donald Trump.
And you're actually selling these neepads.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
We raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, by the way. Uh.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
They're available today, by the way, some of you may
need to buy them in bulk.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
But we have the new Trump signature series neepads on
my Patriot site, which is an actual real site.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
I encourage you, if you're.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
Board, to google it right now. And they were sold out.
Just like our universities. We're selling out, just like our
law firms are selling out. Just like a lot of CEOs.
We're selling out, selling out this country, our future, our republic,
selling out my kids, your grandkids. So there's method to it.
And I mean, it breaks my heart to see these
(19:20):
law firms sell out like this, breaks my heart to
see I mean, President she is out there going my gosh,
Trump's flattery. I mean ten percent of Intel, fifteen percent
at AMD, fifteen percent in Nvidia, emped materials, golden shares
at US Steel. What the hell happened to Free Enterprise?
(19:40):
A healthy horse pulling a sturdy wagon. What's going on
with this country? What's going on with the country?
Speaker 1 (19:46):
The President United States shows up, but the one group
that shows up before them are members of his family
to make sure they get the golf course approved to
use the terrace's leverage to get personal deals done. Towers
three or four different countries. What is the one thing
that has come in all his overseas? This meme coin?
Speaker 3 (20:03):
The crypto scam world live the Pardons on a daily basis,
It seems this is this is not America. It's not
the America I grew up in. It's not America I
want my kids growing up in. So we got to
call this out. And I know it's painful for some
because you know, to be called out.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
And I don't mean to be a fan. I don't
want to.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Be this guy, but it disgusted me, and so I
thought the knee pads were appropriate.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Let me ask you a related question. President Trump on
his website is selling hats that say twenty twenty eight
on them. Do you believe that he has any ambition
to be the president beyond twenty twenty eight well.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
Ambition, yes, but I think he recognizes time of life
is catching up with him, even though he can't remember
exactly why he went in for an MRI, and so
I think his regime will be measured in years, not decades.
God forbid, he was ten twenty years younger. That would,
(21:11):
I don't believe be the case. I take Seve Bannon
quite literally. I take him at his word on this.
By the way, I had Steve on my podcast. I
was in the Oval Office incident link just as an
aside with President Trump a few months ago. He goes
one of the first Democrats down with.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Them almost ninety minutes and one of the things, I'm
sitting there at the resolutey. He turns and he says, Hey,
who's that behind you? I I thought it was someone
walked in. It was a beautiful oil painting of FDR.
And I literally looked and I went, oh, God, here
we go. I said three terms. He goes, now, what
about four?
Speaker 3 (21:45):
He's trolling everybody, but he's also bringing world leaders in
to give them the twenty twenty eight hat.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Heck, this is how serious he was about avoiding.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
The government shutdown that he not only canceled the meetings
with Jeffreys and Schumer felt pressure to get the meeting
back on.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
And what do you do. He didn't invite the press in.
He just had a photo with the twenty twenty eight
hat to troll them on the desk. So I take
him more seriously than most.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
But for me, what I'm worry about again is his
ability to manipulate the twenty twenty eight election, even twenty
twenty eight, even though he's not on the ballot. That's
why it's so important that we win the House of
Representatives in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
It is foundational.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
What do you think he's going to do?
Speaker 1 (22:36):
What is he going to do? He's pay attention, We've
seen them.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
He's put American reverse. He wants just to bring us
back to pre nineteen sixties world. We've seen it across
the spectrum and that's not atypical. Republicans broadly has been
support of that agenda, but he's doing it with more ferocity.
And voting rights, civil rights, ALGBTQ rights, women's rights, and
the like. But when it comes to the issues of
voter id when it comes to the issues of voter
and taker when it comes to the issues of masked
(23:03):
men being in around polling places.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
When it comes to the issue as he's doing in
January quick response teams, did you pay attention to this?
He announced quick response teams.
Speaker 3 (23:13):
In every state in the United States of America so
that he can federalize the National Guard. Think about that
as we come to the elections in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
It's a series of things.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
It's not one thing he's doing getting rid of vote
by mail. It's a series of things that concern me,
and that stacking creates a lot of stress from my perspective.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Let me ask you a different question, which is, for
a very long time, people specifically after the Silicon Valley
were very supportive of you, and they were very supportive
of Democrats, and they were very supportive of California. And
there has been a big move a foot, as you know,
out of the state, either either out of the state
or at least their politics have shifted markedly. So you
(23:59):
may have of Sam Altman or Mark Zuckerberg in your state,
but effectively they are also at the state dinner with
this president. What do you think has happened here?
Speaker 1 (24:12):
Well, they all moved back into the state.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
I mean I live in the state thirty two of
the top fifty market cap AI companies. I mean in
the Bay Area almost dominantly disproportionately. We dominate and fusing quantum,
We dominate in robotics, we dominate in space, we dominate
in all these future technology, including R and D, in
nuclear and of course we have eighteen percent of the
world's R and D in my state. Germany about twenty
(24:36):
one percent, China twenty two percent.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
We're eighteen percent of the world's R and D.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
You saw Tesla move their world R and D headquarters
into Silicon Valley at HP Enterprises old headquarters.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
This is after Elon had left, but all.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
He left with was a bag of cash so he
can avoid capital gains.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
I mean he continued to grow Tesla. In fact, you
can go and watch the press conference we had a
few months later when he brought the R and D
headquarters back where he made the case, we've added ten
thousand jobs from Tesla since we quote unquote moved the company.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
So what is your relation, by the way, what's your
relationship with like with these people now and how do
you keep them in your state? And yet they're on
the other side of your own politics.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
They are and they aren't. It's very situational with a
lot of these guys. A lot of the folks that
Well described moved towards Trump, sort of the Sacks types.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Watch that space, you say, watch it, What do you mean?
Speaker 1 (25:34):
New York Times did a masterpiece.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
It was a masterclass analysis talk about just self dealing.
Come on, I mean cryptos are I mean All In podcasts,
by the way, is you know, great podcasts.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
Not a knock, but you know one of his co hosts.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
Is in business with Trump Junior, who's in business with
Laura Ingram On an new spac they go so, well,
none of this is normal. They announced the big idea
at the All In Podcasts. I mean this is this
is a different level of griff than we've ever experienced
in our lifetime.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
And I say this, I ask you one question, but
I say this, those guys.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
Were already on the spectrum, libertarian spectrum already.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
A lot of these guys were already there. Most of
the other folks. I think it's a little bit more.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
I don't want to say the word transactional, but as fiduciaries,
I guess.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
I'll be kind okay, let me ask you. They are
doing what they feel they need to do, so I
don't see it as a big shift, as perhaps others do,
and that's on the basis of very close relationships, as
you suggest, going back decades.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I ask question because you mentioned David Zachs. The New
York Times had a big piece about David Zachs. A
lot of folks in the valley thought that David Zachs
is doing a great thing by being in this role,
and this is one of these roles. I'm just gonna
give you the position. I'm curious what you take is.
The argument is that if you're going to have experts
in these fields, invariably there are going to be some
kinds of conflicts. Do you think it's been done better before?
(27:14):
I ask because there are people who go back and
look at people who were Democrats. By the way, a
lot of people in google Land and lots of other
parts of Silicon Valley that were very close to the
Obama administration years ago, and people had said that they
were too close. And I don't know if you think
that that's a fair question, or you think that they're
even in the same league.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
I'm not gonna look if you're suggesting that that, I
just want to be careful about this notion of sort
of you know, equivalency. There's nothing equivalent about what's.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Going on in the United States right now as it
relates to cronic capitalism and self dealing, period full stop.
And I mean, we can get into two hundred and
thirty million dollars demand on the DOJ. We can get
into the four undred million dollars Katari jet that includes
a billion dollars of your money where we cut food
stamps to pay for a billion dollars to retrofit that
four hundred million dollar plan. We can get to the
(28:10):
cryptos and the mean coins. We can get to the
resorts and the towers and the golf courses. We can
get into the children of all of these guys from
I mean from Witkoff, sorty two year old Ai Zr.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
Who had no experience and rather cryptos are in his
own right.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
The two billion dollars the binance part in all this.
This is a different level. If you want to compare
that to someone who resigns or takes a leave of
absence from Google to work on open source for the
Biden administration or the Obama administration.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
I think that's not the same thing what I'm arguing for.
David's a very bright guy.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
I'm know you about that, But what the New York
Times highlighted was the conflicts at a scale. He hasn't
done a blind trust, he hasn't pulled away from all
of these investments, and I just think there needs to
be levels of ethics that are demanded of these leaders.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
I want that expertise. I'm with you on that.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
That said, there's so much self dealing and that entire
ecosystem is benefited from it. California is benefited from it,
but they do not think it's healthy for capitalism.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
I do not think it's helping for free enterprise.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Let me ask you a question about your own prospects
outside of California. California, like New York, is not always
the most beloved state by the rest of the country,
and they look at some of these states as aberrations
are on the ends. They physically are on the ends
of the country, And I wonder when you look at
(29:43):
your own prospects, I think it's clear that your ability
to communicate is one of your great attributes. But there's
a lot of people who would look in California and
they look at the debt in California, They look at
some of the issues that have taken place with homeless
which you know about costs home the Prop forty seven
(30:05):
housing costs and the like, and companies and others leaving
the state, and they look and go, you know what,
if we're going to have a guy managing the country,
California is not the example we want to follow.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Well, I mean, we went from the sixth largest economy
the fourth largest economy four point.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
One trillion dollars a year.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
We have more Fortune five hundred companies, and we've ever
had in the last two decades. Went from forty eight
to now our forty nine now to fifty eight Fortune
five hundred companies. You brought up Sam Altman a moment ago,
the largest market cap private company.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
In world history.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
He decided just a few weeks ago we're to headquarter
in the state of California. Were more scientists, engineers, more
Nobel laureates, venture capital over one hundred and six billion
dollars this year.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Sixty eight percent of that.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Invested back into the state of California, finest system of
higher education in the world, a conveyor belt for talent
like no other.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
I mentioned the R and D investments.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
The future happens in my state first, where America is
coming attraction.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
That said, I also will reinforced the obvious. Where else.
The dominant manufacturing of in the United States of America
four and five point six billion dollars thirteen point nine
percent of the US manufacturing Compare that to Rondo centis
two point eight percent. In Florida, where the dominant egg
state sixty two point one billion dollars. Forestry, hunting jobs, eg. Jobs.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
You talk about farmers and ranchers. You're talking about my
home state of California. The state of California has seen
population increase. We had a Treasury secretary here who needs
to actually get some facts.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
You challenged them on some California saw population increased last
year of one hundred and one hundred and five thousand,
the prior year forty nine thousand, the prior before that.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
You got update your talking points. There's California derangement syndrome.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
It really is, and I'm pretty proud of it.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
And I'm also proud of the fact that, in the
spirit of New York Times, the abundance agenda and the
good work that as I was doing. We've never tackled
our housing crisis more aggressively than we tackled it this
last year. We've never tackled our homeless and mental health
crisis more than we have in the last few years.
Point four for five percent increase, less than one percent
(32:17):
in unsheltered homelessness.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Forty other states saw significantly higher.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
Increases and homeless I'm not happy about that, but we're
finally making progress. So in many ways, I think there's
a story to tell, and I'm not arguing for my
own case, but it's a story that I think a
lot of Californians are proud to tell.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
I want to go back to your You've mentioned Grift
a couple of times, and corporate leaders doing things to
placate what you think of as this administration. You mentioned
law firms and others. I talked to us Sire Chary
Scott Best early this morning. We're talking about David Ellison
in Paramount. It's a deal, by the way, that would
likely happen in your state, depending on what ultimately happens.
(32:59):
I don't know if you want to go see Rush
hour four or not. That's on your I.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
Liked I liked one, two and three, So I'm a
Chris Tucker fan.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
So but my question to you is do you blame
the businesses for trying to curry the favor or do
you blame the administration or the other political party for
incentivizing or creating this opportunity if you think that's the case, Look.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
I think trumps dotted up. You got to kiss the ring,
the fealty to the dear leader. It's the likes of
which I've never seen. This guy sees himself.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
But if you were, if you were Tim Cook, and
I'm serious, if you were Tim Cook, under the circumstance
he's in your state. Under the circumstances he is in
which is well, that's he manufactures a lot of stuff
in China, and he was worried about the tariffs.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
He was able to make a phone call that no
small business in my state could have made. I mean,
how about my farmers and ranchers in California. How about
all these small medium sized businesses that can't pay up
the phone and get an exemption on their tariffs.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
So, yeah, it breaks my heart a little. Bits. That's
a version of crony. That is by definition crony capitalism.
It is the definition of it.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
But what is he Back to the generous analysis, that's
called being a fiduciary doing what he needs to do on.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Behalf of his shareholders. That's his job. So do I
begrudge that, Yes, But do I begrudge him? Not as much.
But what I do begrudge is.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
The tone and tenor that this administration is set and
the expectations they've set that if you don't do the bidding,
you don't write the check, you don't get the contract,
directing contracts, changing procurement, sole source on this soul source.
That this is a different level than we've ever seen
in the past.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Some would argue, okay, it's just more transparent.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
Yes, it's at a different scale than we've seen in
the past. And for those that are complicit in participatory
in that beyond their fiduciary responsibility, that's where I have
a real problem.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
We talked to Dario Modi today and we also talked
to Mary Bara, and you're going to see a connection
between the two and just a moment. One of the
things that's fascinating in the AI space is that there
are states, including California, that would like to regulate that
have in artificial intelligence, as you know, and for a
very long time California regulated fuel standards, efficiency standards. You
(35:34):
see how we're connecting these too?
Speaker 1 (35:35):
Rest with you, Okay, that's why you're interviewing and.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
And here we are. And it's interesting. I think if
you're the governor of the state, you might say to
yourself states rights, we want to do this this way.
If you become the president of the United States, do
you want to do it federally? Well, and what's the
better approach.
Speaker 3 (35:56):
There was a president of the United States by the
name of Ronald Reagan whose approach was in nineteen sixty seven,
to advance an effort to regulate tailpipe emissions, created the
California a Resources Board. It was caughtified by the Clean
Air Act in nineteen seventy by Republican Richard Nixon.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
Did so in response to the SMAG crisis.
Speaker 3 (36:17):
In Los Angeles, businesses leaving people leaving that couldn't do
business in my own state, and so they began the
modern environmental movement, particularly as it relates to.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Issues of emissions.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
What Mary did with respect I say this because I've
worked with her in the past. She worked behind our
back to work with Republicans in Congress and Trump to
gut that leadership, going back to Ronald Reagan through a
process called cra with Senator.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
Thune, and she lied about it. She worked behind our
back to gut that. Today.
Speaker 3 (36:54):
She or her representatives are back in the Oval Office
today celebrating the fact they're going to increase costs for
fuel and increase subsidies for polluters by rolling back Joe
Biden's fuel efficiency standards, celebrated by big Oil that just
(37:19):
got eighteen billion dollars in subsidies Big Oil and Gas
in the.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
Big beautiful bill.
Speaker 3 (37:25):
That will put us further behind our number one competitor,
China in terms of a global market.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
And so I'm not happy about that as a Californian.
But if someone just.
Speaker 3 (37:38):
Came back from Belem, came back from cop and everywhere
you went there was a BYD, I mean, these guys
are flooding the zone.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
China understands the opportunity.
Speaker 3 (37:47):
It's about markets, it's about supply chains, and it's about influence.
They're doing in Latin America, South America, increasingly in Europe,
and we are doubling down on stupid Here in the
United States, seventy percent of the EV market is coming
out of China. Now they're three x the manufacturing of
automobiles that we are in the United States of America
(38:08):
about thirty one plus million vehicles to our ten. And
it's the tech stack where they're dominating. It's batteries, it's software,
it's the future, it's mobility. And so yeah, I'm a
little ticked off that these guys want to pave over
the old cowpath as opposed to transform the industry and
the technology and lower costs for consumers and not have
(38:32):
the socialized cost of pollution and lousy health as a
byproduct of it.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
We've only got a minute, and I have a final question,
and it's from a longtime deal Book reader who asks this,
if you are not the Democrats presidential nomination, why is
so much focus on this twenty twenty eight Who what
does he want to be the nominee assuming they can
win the election.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
Someone who is a hard headed pragmatist, someone that understands
we all need to be and all need to love meeting,
someone who is a repair of the breach and you know,
the spirit of father cause, Isaiah, someone needs to be
a repair of the breach. We're polarized and traumatized.
Speaker 1 (39:11):
This is exhausting, the guy literally calling people the R word, piggy.
It's just not this this, this is We're better than this. Uh.
The reason I started my podcast and my first guest
was Charlie Kirk to show respect people.
Speaker 3 (39:28):
I disagree with, and Bannon, who I had on Nike Gingrids,
who led my recall campaign. Divorce is not an option.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
We have to define the terms of our future. And
and so.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
This notion of all being better off, we're all better
off is the kind of attributes that I pray that
our nominee busy.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
There's not a name. You think Kamala Harris could do it.
There's there's again, there are there's literally this year, Wes Moore, all.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Of them, they're all yeah, there and and they'll be
the surprise, mister beast me run. You know, we'll see
if what's the moment. I think right now, the obstacles
away in the sort of the stoic frame, the impediment
action becomes the action. Trump is so dominant situationally, getting
back to twenty twenty six, I know we all want
(40:14):
to pay that positive alternative beyond Trump, and everybody's right
to have that conversation that.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
Jd Vance, by the way, in your mind too, I'm
not a huge fan of his. No, No, I'm saying,
is jd Vance the person you think that you'd be
running against?
Speaker 1 (40:26):
Well, I think Trump's not sure. Trump will determine that.
I mean Trump Trump, he doesn't care if he's the
heel of the hero, cares that he's the star, and
he's not going to walk away. He's going to rig
that nomination.
Speaker 3 (40:40):
And you heard him yesterday even in the Oval office
or in the academy, and he was saying, well.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Is it Rubio, is Advance is advanced Ruby? I mean,
he's already playing around with this.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
So but he'll make that determination ultimately an extension again
of his third term. If because of time of life
he can't extend it and the Supreme Court can't extend
it for him, well you got one.
Speaker 2 (41:04):
More, I got one more, I got a fund.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
Now it's always the last question again, No.
Speaker 2 (41:08):
It's actually not that, it's not that hard. The question is,
if you are not the governor and you're not the
presidential candidate, what do you actually want to do.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
Oh my god, look at me.
Speaker 3 (41:19):
I'm physiologically, I'm changing, I'm my arms across well.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
I remember I people don't know this about me. I
don't know much about me.
Speaker 3 (41:26):
It is remarkable that what's perceived versus reality and God,
for I sound like a politician.
Speaker 1 (41:32):
Actually have a book coming out, young man in a hurry.
Speaker 3 (41:35):
And again speaking of purchasing, you can buy it in bulk.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
It's be out in February.
Speaker 3 (41:42):
But to sort of demystify all this, February twenty third
the But I say that to make this point.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
That I'm a small business guy.
Speaker 3 (42:01):
I started right out of college pen to paper, one
part time employee, Pat Kelly, opened a little business with
literally one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars thirteen investors.
I built that restaurants, hotels, wineries. We've got about a
thousand employees, twenty three little businesses.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
I say that not to impress.
Speaker 3 (42:18):
Any of you, but impressed upon you my passion for entrepreneurialism,
my passion for risk taking, free enterprise.
Speaker 1 (42:26):
And so I'm still that guy.
Speaker 3 (42:29):
So for me, you answer that question, that's my backup plan,
that's my default. But I'm also deeply committed to public
service and deeply committed. However, that manifests even if it's
not an elected office.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
And I'll close with a Justice Brandise quote, why not
when in doubt? Justice Brandise?
Speaker 3 (42:47):
He said, in a democracy, the most important office is
not governor, mayor president. In a democracy, the most important
office is office of citizen. So it's in that spirit
of citizenship that I look forward of the future as well.
Speaker 2 (43:01):
Governor Newsom, thank you, thank you very very much, Thank
you very very much, really appreciate it.
Host
Gavin Newsom
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com