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

All right, everybody. We've got an incredible guest today. Governor Josh Shapiro is here, obviously the governor of Pennsylvania. He's got record-setting popularity in Pennsylvania right now—60% approval, at least. He's a moderate. He's focused on getting things done—GSD. He's tough on crime, ranked number one, according to my notes, on charging Medicaid fraud. He's pro-data center. He's got a nuanced take on Israel. And he's a baller, apparently. Cuts the table. Got him. Very nice.

God. There's your governor. Look at those short shorts. Holy cow. Got him. Wow. It's the late '80s. Man, based on the VHS tape, this looks like the '80s.

Yeah, that was 1990, I think.

Look at that, playing the point.

There you go.

Very nice. Very nice. All right.

That was back when people shot mid-range jumpers. They don't do that anymore, man. They don't do that. They should.

All threes. Yeah, I mean, we have a couple of players, and we were talking before the show started. You're obviously a big Philly fan, and I'm a big Knicks fan, so I will see you at the games. We're on a collision course.

By the way, with all due respect, and I hope we have a good conversation here, I hope to never see you at the games. Because if you're showing up in Philly with all your Knicks crap on, I'm not going to be a happy guy.

Oh, look at a selfie courtside with my friend Dave, who is one of the co-owners of the team and a mutual friend of ours. I think he egged you on a little bit to come on the program here.

He did. He should go on All-In. They have thoughtful conversations, and I'm anxious to have one with you. So, thanks for having me.

Yeah. There's so much for us to talk about, but I thought I would start with your track record in Pennsylvania. The reason I wanted to start there is because there's a bit of a collision course happening right now between you and Gavin Newsom. Gavin's got what I would describe as a variable tenure here in California. I left California for Texas because I just thought it was a bit of a disaster, but you're doing great in your state, and that's in the face of New York, my hometown, New Jersey, and Boston losing a lot of business leaders.

And you've been scoring some big wins. So, when you look at your track record, maybe you could just educate the audience on what you've gotten done, and maybe in comparison to what's happening in those other states with other Democratic leaders, because you seem to be maybe the exception to this rule that Democrats aren't getting it done on a business level.

Look, I'm proud of what we've done. I'm not in comparison with Gavin or any other Democratic governor. I'll just talk about what we've done here in Pennsylvania. We are a pro-growth state. We want businesses to come here and grow. I'm proud of the fact that we've created more jobs than all but 2 states in the entire country.

We've cut taxes 7 different times to be more competitive—cut taxes for small businesses, also for families trying to afford child care, for seniors, and for working Pennsylvanians. We've taken our permitting process—that's usually the ticket you need, say, to build your building, right? If you're trying to build something here in Pennsylvania, we were bottom 5 in the country. I think we're now a national model, easily top 5 in terms of speed.

We've got a money-back guarantee on all of our permits. If we don't get you your permit in time, we'll give you your money back. And fun fact, we did issue 40 million permits during my time as governor. We've only had to issue 5 refunds, meaning only 5 of those permits were late.

We are now the only growing economy in the northeastern part of the United States. At the same time, we're investing in workforce development, especially if you don't have a college degree—tripling funding for vo-tech and apprenticeship programs and understanding the need to take the workforce we have today and prepare them for jobs here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I'm proud that we've got an unemployment rate below the national rate consistently over the last 32 months.

I think it is really critical that every kid born in Pennsylvania gets a great-quality education, that that kid has a safe street to walk down to get to school or wherever else they're going, and that they've got a job in the community that they love. Those, to me, are the core foundational principles. It's what we focus on every single day. Our mantra, as you said at the top, is GSD: get done. Those are the areas where we focus on getting done, and I think we're putting a lot of points on the board every single day that are making a meaningful difference in people's lives.

How are you getting that done? Let's just take permitting as an example. Why is it so dysfunctional in California? Obviously, I'm an investor in technology companies, and we just saw red tape after red tape. Then on housing, it's incredibly hard to build anything. The NIMBYism—you know, if you cast a shadow, nothing can be built—and then housing prices keep going up.

And if you want to hire a nanny or a teacher, or if a firefighter moves in, they can't even afford a home in the community that they're servicing. So, how did you fix this, and why can't other states fix it?

I can't speak to how it's done in California. I'll just tell you, in Pennsylvania, the way we start the conversation is by recognizing that permits are critically important to economic development and to creating jobs. If we, the government, can move at the speed of business—if I can give you, as a CEO, predictability to know your business is going to be open in 6 months instead of 3 years because the permit took too long—then you're going to want to invest here. So, we start with the important idea that permits matter.

Second, when you come into our state government to get your permit—let's just use a building as an example—we want to get to yes. We still want to protect the environment, public health, and public safety, and we do that, but we want to get to yes. So, our attitude has shifted.

Third, we've got to have that money-back guarantee because that money-back guarantee holds the bureaucracy accountable. Now, I will tell you that some of this we've done administratively, meaning I've signed executive orders and we've made those changes. But in other things, we've worked with the legislature to pass new laws to speed up our permitting.

And it hasn't always been easy. Understand, I'm a Democrat as governor. I've got a divided legislature. I was the only governor for a while with a divided legislature; now there's one other. I've got a Senate led by Republicans by just 2 seats and a House led by Democrats by just 1 seat. But this is an area where I've been able to bring Democrats and Republicans together in order to make progress in terms of passing this permitting reform.

And again, proof is in the pudding. What we are seeing is that businesses are coming here and the economy's growing. Let me give you one more example. This may seem really small to you, but it's a big deal, okay? When I talk about a permit, if you want to be a barber in Pennsylvania, you need a permit—or technically it's called a license, but I put it all in one.

Yeah, some kind of certificate, yeah.

Right. The day I took office, it took 20 days for a barber to get their permit to be able to go out and cut hair. Today, you get it the same day. You get it within that day. That may seem silly to you, but I called my barber. I asked him, “How many heads do you cut a day?” He said, “About 10 a day.” At $20 a pop, that's $200 a day for 20 days. That's real money. That's thousands of dollars that we're putting into that barber's pocket just because we got them their permit more quickly.

I know it may sound nerdy, it may sound wonky, but whether you're building some big building that's going to house hundreds of workers or thousands of people who are living there, or whether you're the local barber that everybody needs to go to get their haircut, this stuff matters. And the quicker you are, the more jobs you create and the more money you put in people's pockets.

It also matters, I think, on a philosophical basis: Who is the government working for? Themselves and their timelines, or for the people who put them in office? And I think that's the philosophy—at least, watching it happen in New York and California, it's the opposite of what you described. There's no sense of urgency, and there's almost a situation where people believe it's intractable, that they can't change it. And so I think such an important point is that you actually made it happen.

I think that's a great point. I want to focus on what you just said there. First off, I start the conversation believing the government can be a force for good in people's lives. Second, we've got to figure out a way to get to yes, whether it's building the building or getting that mom the support she needs for her kid with autism. We've got to figure out a way to get to yes and get them that help.

You mentioned in your question the way people get—I don't recall if you used the word “frustrated”—or feel that government's sort of holding them back, right? Not trying to work with them.

In a way, right? It's just, if you have that experience 3 or 4 times, whether it's at the airport or getting your driver's license or getting the haircutting certificate, it's just oppressive over time. You just feel like the government's working against you.

Yeah, and what does that person feel after they try to get their permit and can't get it? They try to open up their small business; it won't work.

They get frustrated. By the way, they get pissed. And then not only are they pissed at that agency or that governor, or at that state government, they also grow—and this is an important point—a little more cynical about government and a little more frustrated with the process. When that happens, I think it creates more distrust in our system, and it creates more opportunity for dark voices on the extremes to come in and take advantage of people.

I find that if we get it done the right way, if we process things quickly, if we get people to yes, then maybe a byproduct of that is a little bit less cynicism in our system.

Yeah, and the horseshoe theory that you're referencing there—these 2 extremes just taking over the conversation—that's not what the majority of the country wants. They want to just live in a high-functioning society.

I was curious how you look at waste, fraud, and abuse. My friend Elon Musk, to drop a name, did this DOGE thing. It was a little controversial, but I think what we've seen is, hey, 20% to 30% of every tax dollar collected is wasted. Some of it's fraud; some of it's just incompetence. It could be anything on that spectrum.

This seems to be the Republican Party's rallying cry to beat the Democrats going into California and prosecuting people in Michigan, et cetera. You seem to have gotten ahead of this. You've been doing this for years, so maybe you could explain your take on fighting fraud, specifically in health care or in other areas.

Yeah. Look, I think we've got to focus on rooting fraud out of the system. Now, you and I may differ on, hey, should we spend a dollar on that initiative or not? Those are super-healthy differences, and we should argue that out. We should debate that. But where we should have no difference is if someone's stealing that dollar instead of using it for its intended purpose, we should be against that. And I am.

Prior to serving as governor and having the privilege of sitting here in this office serving the good people of Pennsylvania, I was the state's attorney general. You'll remember that back during COVID, there were those PPP loans to help our small businesses and other businesses stay afloat. We'd probably agree that it was a good idea, right? We had to keep businesses afloat.

But during that time, I went out and prosecuted a whole bunch of people for stealing that PPP money, for not using it for its intended purposes. Here as governor, I've maintained a similar focus through my Office of Inspector General, rooting out fraud and making sure, by the way, that we're not fronting you money when you're going out and providing, say, human services. You have to submit for reimbursement, and you've got to prove that you did that work.

When we find that someone took advantage of the system, we're referring them to prosecutors. I'm proud of the fact that we've had more Medicaid fraud prosecutions in Pennsylvania than, I think, any other state. Maybe there was 1 other. We're certainly toward the top of that list. I'm proud of the fact that we've identified it, sent it to prosecutors, and addressed it.

If we can address it administratively, we do. If not, we understand that those things need to be prosecuted. We should have a zero-tolerance policy for that. We should make sure that if we're going to utilize a hard-earned dollar of a taxpayer for a purpose like providing someone with the health care that they need, we make sure that dollar makes its way to that person so they get their health care. Our folks are working really hard on that in Pennsylvania.

So, pro-business, less regulation, lowering taxes, eliminating fraud—and all of this is just getting done in the state. The next piece, at least in my community, is that people who are creators of businesses—venture capitalists, angel investors, founders—we pay a lot of taxes, depending on which state you live in.

You're paying more taxes in Pennsylvania, man. Stop paying them elsewhere.

Yeah. Well, then we get struck with this California law, and a lot of my friends have moved to Austin, where I live now. They just said, suddenly, hey, we want to seize 5% of whatever you've got. You already paid your taxes. You haven't paid capital gains on some of this equity you own in your company. Maybe it's paper wealth. Maybe your company went public, and now you could sell some of it, but you might crater the stock if you do.

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and California are all trying to seize assets. This has really hit business creators in a really offensive way, to the point at which they're moving. California lost Sergey Brin and Travis Kalanick from Uber, just fleeing en masse in the last 12 months.

Do you believe in these wealth taxes, and do you believe in seizing people's assets on gains they've never received? It seems to be getting momentum.

I'll just tell you, we've cut taxes 7 times in Pennsylvania. We've got one of the lowest income taxes in the entire country. It's why I'm joking with you that you should come to Pennsylvania and locate here.

That kind of tax that you're describing is not something we have here. It's certainly not something on my agenda. I do think people need to pay their fair share. I think you'd agree with that. We need to make sure that we are easing the burden on those who are working and who are at the lowest economic point on the scale, and we have to make sure that folks at the top are paying their fair share in order to sustain our society.

I think we've struck a really good balance here in Pennsylvania, and I think our growth numbers bear that out. I think seeing more people coming to the state bears that out.

There's an important stat, one of the things you cited about those entrepreneurs as you were going through your question. These are people who started with a dream, with an idea that someone might have looked at and said, "Geez, I don't know about that," but they stuck with it and built up their companies.

We see that here in Pennsylvania, particularly when it comes to life sciences. We're seeing people plant a flag here in Pennsylvania, start with an idea that others might think, "Boy, I don't know about that." But because of our tax environment in Pennsylvania, because of our pro-growth approach in Pennsylvania, we're seeing more of those small businesses and more of those small companies, especially in life sciences, survive that sort of valley where a lot of those companies go out of business and sustain themselves here.

Again, I think we're showing that we're pro-growth and that we've got a smart tax environment for them. By the way, after we invest in them, after we give them a shot, and after they do well, we expect them to pay their fair share back to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I think that's the approach we've taken, and it's working.

Yeah. If you're not in favor of a wealth tax, what would you do to deal with the disparity in wealth that we're seeing? There were some statistics that came out the other day. I'm sure you saw them. The upper middle class has just been surging, the middle class is going down a bit, and people in the lower rungs are going down as well.

People may feel like they're not making enough money, but in reality, what's happening is that people feel other people have made a tremendous amount of money—which is true, because equity holdings are growing much better than salaries ever will, and only 40% to 50% of the country really participates in a meaningful way in equities. The other 40% to 50% don't have any exposure to that.

How would you deal with somebody making $100 billion, $500 billion, or $1 trillion and never selling their equity, or maybe not selling it for 20 years? How do you think about that?

I'll make 3 points: a Pennsylvania point and a couple of broader points.

One, you cannot have a national economy that works if it's only working for the 1%. You pointed out in your question the wage disparity and the disparity of income. You have to make sure that there is opportunity for those at all different income levels.

As we sit here today, if you're making $1 million versus $50,000, you're going to be able to buy some stuff that someone making $50,000 can't buy, right? We understand that. But you've got to have opportunity, you've got to have a level playing field, you've got to have a fair shot, and you've got to have a tax system that works in a fair way. That's point 1.

Point 2 is that here in Pennsylvania, we've tried to address some of that economic disparity by passing the first-ever Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, essentially a state-level earned income tax credit. What we're saying is, if you're working, if you're going out and busting your hump, we're going to put some money back in your pocket.

About 940,000—almost 1 million—Pennsylvanians are going to qualify for a little over $800 back in their pockets. That's going to help not only today, with rising costs due to a lot of these federal policies, but it's going to put money back in people's pockets and allow them to make the investments they need to make in their everyday lives.

Here's the third point, what I would not do, because you asked what I would do. What I would not do is what President Trump did at the federal level, with an assist from a whole bunch of sycophants in Congress, by passing that budget bill—or the "One Big Beautiful Bill," or whatever the hell they call it.

In effect, what they did was give a tax cut to those who simply do not need it, right? And by the way, in the palace of truth and justice, you talk to those folks.

They know that they didn't need that tax cut. What happens as a result is that I've got 500,000 Pennsylvanians who are going to lose their health care. I've got 120,000 who have already lost their health care. About another 320,000 or so are likely to lose Medicaid next year. I've got 26 rural hospitals that are likely to shutter because these are rural hospitals operating at a deficit and relying so much on Medicaid, which has been slashed by the federal government.

So, the idea that Donald Trump thought it was smart economic policy to give a tax cut to those who don't need it and pay for it with those who are struggling and create even greater economic disparities—that is going to hold back our entire economy. Just take those 500,000 people who aren't going to have health care. You're paying for that, and I'm paying for that, with our private insurance. So, what Donald Trump has done is shift that burden onto those who are struggling, making it harder for them and adding additional cost to the middle class.

And I think that, frankly, it's just dumb economic policy. I think it's going to set us back.

Here we are. Politics is on the table. You have an incredible track record, but let's dive into the Democratic Party. I'm an independent, but I grew up Irish Catholic in Brooklyn, so I grew up a Democrat. I've probably voted 60/40 Democrat to Republican, but always for a moderate—somebody who can get stuff done. That's why I find you quite appealing.

But let's talk about the Democratic Party and the shellacking they got in the last election. Specifically, what really troubled me was that Biden didn't look like he was all there, and I think we've all come to some consensus that he probably should have dropped out earlier. But what was really disheartening to me was that they didn't do the speed-run primary. They didn't do a capsule primary over that July-August period and give you a shot, and other people—Pritzker, Pete, whoever—a shot to compete for the nomination.

Was that a huge mistake for the Democratic Party? And when you look back on it, do you think that might have cost you all the election?

Well, look. I actually wrote about this in the book I recently published, where it became clear to me that Joe Biden seeking another term was probably not in the best interest of the party or the country. I spoke to him directly and bluntly about that. Once he made the decision to drop out, with 100 and whatever days to go, there were not many opportunities, I think, to have the kind of primary process that you're talking about.

I think it is important to look forward, right, and not look backwards. You said in the last election Democrats took a shellacking. Actually, if you look at 2025, it was the opposite. The president's party, the Republican Party, got beat in New Jersey, got beat in Virginia, got beat here in Pennsylvania, where we won 3 state Supreme Court seats. So, obviously, there's a pendulum in American politics, and it's clearly swinging back.

I think what's important is that we look forward. I think it's also really important for my party to have a real debate and a real discussion about ideas. What are we for, and what are we willing to fight for? I realize that process may at times look a little messy. I realize—and I mean this with the utmost respect—it gives folks like you on a podcast or on a show the ability to pick apart, maybe try to parse words, or pit one Democrat against another and try and create conflict.

But I would just say that, overall, having this debate, having these issues raised, and having disagreements—that's healthy for our party. Ultimately, I think our party's poised to take back power, and that will make us better at governing. To me, the whole purpose of running in an election is getting the chance to govern, not just winning the election. Having these debates right now puts us in a better position when we win those elections.

I'm running for re-election right now in Pennsylvania. I'm going to work my ass off to win another term and earn the support of the people of Pennsylvania again. I want to continue to deliver and continue to focus on these issues that matter most. Having that debate, I think, is really healthy.

I understand looking forward is most important, but I've got to go one more time in the rearview mirror here. Kamala Harris was picked because Biden had put out a criterion: “Hey, I want to have a woman of color as my vice president.” He was very explicit about that. She could be qualified, unqualified, or moderately qualified.

But then when she went to pick her VP, everybody was saying, “Hey, Josh Shapiro should really be in the running.” And she didn't pick you specifically because she didn't think she could win with a Jewish vice president.

Yeah.

So—

No, respectfully, I've got to push back on that. And again, I've been very open about this. Yeah.

Let's do it.

Yeah, and respectfully, I'm not looking to be argumentative with you, but I—

Be candid. Yeah.

I was very detailed and very specific in my book about this process. I was very grateful to the vice president for being considered and grateful to her for the candid dialogue we had. About 48 hours before she picked Tim Walz, I pulled out and made clear that that was not something I was interested in doing. I thought I could serve the good people of Pennsylvania and do my best serving here as governor, in a job that I absolutely love.

So, this wasn't about her not picking me because of my faith. This was about me, in the end, not being interested in that job.

Really? Sincerely, yes. Because it did seem like you wanted to be considered for that VP position.

I called Sunday evening after she and I met and had a really candid conversation to inform her that I did not want to be considered. I thought she had some really good people to choose from.

All right. So, let's move forward, then, looking at winning. You're going to run for governor again. Assume that's going to be a shoo-in. You have to do the work, but it's pretty clear you're going to—

Your confidence there, my man.

Yeah, no, it's clear. But let's talk a little bit about if you were to run for president, which people seem to think you've got a really good shot. But you're below the level of national recognition right now. You're a little bit far behind. Gavin has come out: “Hey, I'm running. I'm running. Here I am.” He's obviously in the pole position for now.

I want to understand how the Democratic Party should proceed because, just like the right seemed to separate and you had this MAGA coalition, you had the traditional Republicans who were just aghast at Trump and his style and his behavior, et cetera, now that seems to have fractured again. You have America First, America Only. All the supporters who were supporting Trump have now come out vocally against him because of the war in Iran.

Then on your side, you have the socialist Democratic movement, which I think a lot of moderates are like, “Well, that's confusing. We don't want to have more Mamdanis.” And that doesn't seem super appealing to a lot of moderates. The moderates are the ones who flipped this election. In the last election, they went with Trump, largely as opposed to going with Kamala.

So, handicap for me: What has to happen in the Democratic Party to win in 2028?

I understand what you're asking, and I will answer your question. I don't think anyone should be looking past these midterms. While I appreciate the confidence you have in me and maybe in the broader dynamics here, I think we need to have a national referendum in these midterms on what people see happening in Washington, D.C.—the chaos and corruption that exists there.

I think people need to show up in record numbers and vote their concerns. Since I'm not looking past the midterms, I do think it is important that we acknowledge Donald Trump has injected chaos and corruption into everything he touched. I think it's important for me and other Democratic leaders in this country to be able to show what calm, competent governance can actually deliver for people.

That's what I'm going to be talking about in these midterms as I seek re-election. I think it is important to paint an alternative picture to the chaos Donald Trump has created—one where you can actually grow the economy and make our communities safer.

We didn't talk about this yet, but we've hired 2,000 more police officers, invested in community violence prevention, and violent crime is down 12%. Fatal gun violence is down 42% in our Commonwealth. We've invested in public education, and, by the way, scores are up and truancy is down. We're moving up on the list. We're about 10th, according to ConsumerAffairs, in the quality of public education.

I think we've got to show that there is an alternative to Donald Trump's chaos, cruelty, and corruption. You're seeing that, I think, certainly in my state. I think you're seeing it in other states as well, and we need to paint that alternative picture.

So, 2026 is certainly going to be a referendum on the first 2 years of this presidency, which was extremely popular for the first 9 months or so. People felt really good about the economy.

Some people.

Well, I think his polling was great. But there was this tinge—I think it's pretty accurate to say—the tariffs felt like those were chaotic.

Yeah.

Then you get the ICE situation. That feels very chaotic. Then you go to this war with Iran, and that feels like a peak chaotic moment that we're in here in week 6 of this.

So, it’s certainly going to be a referendum on Trump, and it feels like all the Democrats have to do is sit back and say, “Look, is this what you want? Gas prices up, inflation.” But you’re saying they have to paint another picture. Paint that picture for me. What is that picture?

I think on both sides of what you just said, Donald Trump chose to push the tariff button, right?

Yeah.

As a result, here in Pennsylvania, what we’re seeing is coffee prices are up 30%. Beef is up 19%. OJ, orange juice, is up 9%. The fertilizers my farmers rely on here in Pennsylvania are up 36%.

So, we’re seeing that whether you’re a farmer, whether you’re a dad just trying to cook dinner for his kids, whatever the case may be, everything costs more because of the recklessness and chaotic approach Donald Trump is taking with our economy and these tariffs. Obviously, this war has spiked gas prices. They’re up today to about $4.15, $4.16 here in Pennsylvania, similar across the country. It’ll probably be years before those gas prices come down, even if the war, hopefully, ends very soon.

I think it is important, yes, to point out the way Donald Trump’s policies have hurt the American people, have hurt our farmers, and have hurt our small businesses. The point I was making a moment ago is that I think that’s part of the conversation. The other part of the conversation is, “Okay, well, what are you doing to make people’s lives better?”

Yeah. So, what should the top 3 things be? If you were running the Democratic Party and everybody got in a room and said, “You know what? We really are going to take winning seriously, not get into this purity test for everybody in the party, where everybody’s got to be perfect, and Joe Rogan’s not good enough to go on air with because he’s a lifelong Democrat, but he said something about COVID we don’t agree with. Therefore, he’s out of the party.”

Elon Musk is a little bit weird on the right, but the Democrats did the same thing. Then, Elon Musk waited hours to get a meeting and had Obama at SpaceX, and then all of a sudden he can’t come to the White House for the EV Summit, the category he created. It’s pretty obvious the Democratic Party had some real dysfunction in terms of building a bigger tent.

I can tell you I have never felt more courted in my life than by the Republican Party trying to get me to be part of the Trump movement, which I demurred and declined. It wasn’t my style. But they are trying to build the biggest tent possible. They’re like, “Oh, you agree with 14% of what we do? You’re in.”

Okay.

Yeah, so walk me through what the top things should be.

Let’s dissect. First off, you attributed a number of things to Democrats that I didn’t say. You’re here interviewing me, so let’s focus on the things I say.

Number 2, they courted you and you demurred. But by the way, even had you not demurred, had you signed up, I don’t know that your life would be better off after a year and a half of Trump’s policies.

What I’m for here in Pennsylvania—the ultimate swing state, the toughest state to win in, and an incredibly tough state to govern in, particularly with a divided legislature—is investing in public education and giving every child of God an opportunity. I’m for safe communities, and we’re building that here and reducing crime in all of our communities.

I’m for a pro-growth economy where we generate more energy, generate more jobs, and create more opportunities, particularly in our rural and forgotten communities that have too often been left behind. And here’s the 4th thing I’m for: I am for freedom.

I’ll tell you what: this president represents a party that used to be known as the party of freedom, and now they have turned their backs on that. They want to tell my kids what books they’re allowed to read. They want to tell women what medicines they can take and what they can do with their bodies. They want to control the way I raise my child.

They want to say, every day, that, “Yeah, you can vote, but we’re going to set the rules and try to rig them in a way where you’re not going to be successful.” They are not the party of freedom.

I think the Democratic Party has an opportunity to be the party of education, safety, economic opportunity, and freedom. That’s what we’re doing here in Pennsylvania, and that’s what I’m going to continue to put forth.

I think it’s a great platform. I would add housing. The thing I hear from young people all the time is, “I’ll never be able to afford a house. The American dream’s a bit of a scam, and college is overpriced.” So, how do you think about housing? Is that an issue in your state?

Let’s talk about housing. Let’s also talk about college, because you raised both of them in your question.

And look, I mean, that has disaffected, by the way, like 2 generations who are saying, “You guys tricked us on housing. You told us we’d be able to get a home, and you won’t sell your home, boomers. And you told us we could always make more than our college education cost, and that was a lie, too.”

When I was talking about economic opportunity, it’s shorthand, if you will, for also being able to afford that community. Affording that community can mean health care. It can mean housing, right?

But let’s talk about housing. Here in Pennsylvania, I’ve asked the legislature for a $1 billion fund to be able to build more housing in Pennsylvania and repair existing housing. 50% of my housing was built prior to 1950. You can invest a few thousand bucks in a new boiler, a new roof, or some new windows and actually keep people in their homes, without having to build new homes.

We also have to eliminate, or damn near eliminate, the red tape that exists when it comes to building housing. We’ve got to be able to build this faster. So, I put forth a regulatory reform plan to be able to build more housing. I think that is really, really crucial.

Let’s talk about college for a minute. The first day I was governor, the first executive order I signed was to do away with the college degree requirement to work for state government. We have 80,000 employees, and now, damn near all of them do not have to have a college degree, other than doctors, lawyers, and people like that who require advanced degrees.

So now 60% of all of our hires in state government don’t have a college degree. We followed up on that by tripling our funding for vo-tech and CTE in our high schools, and dramatically increasing our funding for apprenticeship programs.

62% of Pennsylvania’s adult population does not have a college degree. So, we need to make sure we’re investing in them so that they have opportunities. You want to go learn to be a welder? You’re going to make 6 figures working in a shipyard in South Philadelphia. You want to work on HVAC systems? You’re going to work on some of our most complex life sciences construction jobs, and you’re going to make 6 figures doing that.

For us, we fundamentally believe that you’ve got many pathways to opportunity here in Pennsylvania. For some, it’s going to college. Great. For others, if you choose not to go to college, that’s also great. We’re going to make sure that we pave the way for you and give you that opportunity.

Yeah, the Gen Z blue-collar movement is well upon us. People are starting to figure out that going into $100,000 or $200,000 of debt versus getting a plumber job, carpenter job, HVAC job, or whatever for 6 figures out of the gate is a much better opportunity.

Yeah, and to be clear, I’m not down on people who go to college. I went to college. I presume you went to college. But for too long, politicians in both parties defined success exclusively around the idea that you had to have a college degree, and then set up arbitrary barriers to entry: “Hey, if you don’t have a college degree, you can’t apply here.”

What about the skills that you developed in the military? What about the skills you developed at a trade school, or the skills that you developed working in the private sector? Those skills should matter, and now they do in Pennsylvania.

We’re no longer taking an elitist approach that shuts people out just because they don’t have a college degree. We’re giving them the keys to opportunity and opportunities to pursue more success here in Pennsylvania.

Does the socialist Democratic movement—Mamdani and the crew—worry you? How do you think about that in terms of the party dynamics?

Remember the question you asked me 3 or 4 questions ago, where you said, “Well, yeah, I only agree with 14% of what you agree with. Come join the party”?

My view is that we’ve got to have a big tent. We’ve got to have a real debate around different ideas. Just because I might not agree with you on these 3 things, I might agree with you on something else. Listen—

Yeah.

I’m sitting behind my desk here in the governor’s office. This is where I negotiate bills and budgets and other things. If I threw everybody out of my office that I didn’t agree with 100% of the time, we’d never get anything done.

When I sit down across the table from a Republican lawmaker, I say, “What are the 10 things you want to accomplish?” I tell him the 10 things I want to accomplish. You know what? We’re not going to agree on all 10, but if we agree on 3 or 4, I’d rather focus on those 3 or 4 things where we can find common ground than the 5, 6, or 7 things where we’re just going to disagree.

So, I think if you want to make progress, you’ve got to figure out how to create majorities—whether it’s a majority in the legislature to get a bill to my desk or a majority at election time to win an election. You’ve got to find ways to bring people together and find common ground, and not just focus exclusively on our differences.

What’s your take on what’s going on in Congress and the Senate in terms of Trump and getting alignment there? When you go to war or impose tariffs, this is something where we’ve traditionally had consultation between the different branches of our government. We’ve also had presidents on the Democratic side say, “Hey, we’re going to just get rid of student loans. I’m doing an executive order.”

I’m curious about your take on the balance among our different branches of government and the lack of collaboration, because this is particularly disturbing. We’re both Gen Xers. We grew up watching Democrats and Republicans argue, but then they all got together, had lunch, and negotiated.

Where is that esprit de corps of everybody rowing in the same direction for all Americans, versus this toxic, “We’re just going to block each other and do character assassination at every single turn”? It’s the most polarized of our lifetimes, for sure.

I think the Congress of the United States—the leadership there—is frankly made up of kind of sad, pathetic people. Let me explain why. You put Johnson in as speaker, and he’s effectively a rubber stamp for anything Donald Trump wants.

By the way, whether you agree with Trump or not, I think you can agree that you’d like your member of Congress to at least meet the burdens that they have under the Constitution of the United States: to be a check, to be a separate branch of government, and to have meaningful responsibilities.

When the Congress of the United States walks away from its responsibilities, whether on tariffs or declaring war, and ultimately just empowers the president—again, agree or disagree; obviously, I have profound disagreements with the president on those things—then what you’ve really done is limited the power of Congress.

What you’ve really done is seen a whole bunch of people put Donald Trump before the oath of office they take to the Constitution. I think that’s just pathetic. Why do these people work so hard to get to Congress, move up in leadership, and do all the things they have to do, only to give away their power to Donald Trump? That’s pathetic, and it’s weak. I think our country is suffering as a result.

Look, I’m here in Pennsylvania, where it all began 250 years ago. The brilliance of our founders was that they left so much of the work to the next generation and the generation after that—to pick up the baton and continue to perfect our union.

Our founders, though, always contemplated 2 things. One, that there would be honorable people in office. Two, that the people in office would exercise their power and be a check on one another, and in some cases slow things down to make sure that bad things didn’t occur and couldn’t get through the process.

I think what Americans are confronting now is the realization that we don’t really have all honorable people in positions of authority in the federal government. That checks-and-balances system that was constructed here in Pennsylvania is not standing the test of time because you’ve got these profoundly and pathetically weak people like Johnson and others who simply give away their power to folks who are corrupt and who are not acting in an honorable way.

You keep bringing up that corruption. Explain to me what corrupt things you know that the Trump administration has done.

I think, to me, there has been an extraordinary amount of self-dealing. There has been a good bit of family members doing quite well in this environment. I think you’re seeing more and more people who have the president’s ear being able to lobby him at his swim club to get a pardon for someone who, frankly, doesn’t deserve a pardon.

I think the list goes on and on and on, but those are some examples that I think the American people see with their own eyes. Taking a billion-dollar jet from the Qataris and thinking there’s nothing attached to that—I mean, I think there’s just a lot of that moving so fast that the American people are having a hard time keeping up with it. But there will be a reckoning on this one.

Yeah, on the pardons, I strongly agree. It feels like the pardon power is super-abused. Is there a path to refining that tool? It relies on norms, right?

Ever since Bill Clinton did some for friends, and then obviously Biden did his son’s, and now Trump’s doing his for various people, it feels like this is just a get-out-of-jail card. You come into an administration, and then everybody from Fauci to Hunter Biden and everybody else is just going to get a pardon on the way out. How would you reshape that tool?

Let’s be clear. I don’t think you’re suggesting this, but I was critical of Joe Biden when he pardoned his son. I was critical of him publicly. What we are seeing under Donald Trump, you have to admit, is next-level when it comes to the abuse.

Yes, and it’s in the first year. It’s not on the last day. It’s an ongoing tool here. We had CZ, who was a crypto person, get pardoned, and Trump didn’t even know who he was. He was just like, “I heard he’s a good guy.”

I sit at this desk and sign pardons and clemencies. I take that responsibility so seriously. I agonize over these decisions, and I pray that I get them right. I believe I have. I’m transparent about why I viewed someone as worthy of clemency, and also why someone was not worthy, or did not earn one.

These are tough, tough decisions. It goes back to what I said a moment ago. Our founders, when they vested that kind of authority in an executive, didn’t necessarily do something wrong by giving the executive that power. But they were leaning on the assumption that the executive would be honorable, and that the executive would do this with morality and real scruples in mind.

I think what we’re seeing with the president is that if you sidle up to him at his swim club, donate a certain amount of money, or have his ear for some other social reason, you can usually get him to give a pardon to someone who’s important to you.

The pardons definitely are super-troubling. How do you deal with family members and kids enriching themselves? Obviously, nothing has been done by a court or an investigation into Trump’s kids at this point, so we just want to be clear about that.

We had Hunter Biden getting a ridiculous million-dollar board seat. I’ve never seen anybody get paid a million dollars to be on a board. That was obviously corrupt in some way, or somebody was trying to curry favor. It doesn’t mean President Biden was, but there was definitely corruption there.

How do you deal with the kids of people in office? These kinds of allegations have been going on for a while. If we can’t rely on honor and norms, is there another proposal here that the kids of people in office can’t make money? Your kids can’t make money. If I were running for office, my kids couldn’t make money in the free market. Is there any kind of solution you can think of?

I think it is important. You cited Hunter Biden. They went through a legal process. There was an investigation by the Department of Justice. I think there has to be a real look at some of this stuff. I say this as a former prosecutor: follow the evidence, follow the law, and if charges are warranted, bring them.

By the way, if charges are not warranted, don’t bring them. Do not use the rule of law as a tool to go against political opponents in any way.

But I think what you’ve got to have here are people who are operating with real morality. You do have to figure out a way to operate within the norms again. I’m unwilling to accept that those norms are gone. They may be temporarily suspended under Donald Trump, but I’m hopeful that we can find our way back to them.

Let me be clear about something else here: finding our way back to that is a bipartisan exercise. It’s going to require Republicans, Democrats, and independents all demanding, when they go to the ballot box, that we elevate people who are ethical, people who are honest, and people who are focused on doing their jobs with integrity.

Then, when those people are in office, they need to be rewarded with the votes of the public and, in these positions of public trust, held accountable as well.

And you believe that can happen in a post-Trump world?

I do. I do. I strongly agree.

It’s been a year since your home was firebombed by an insane person who was anti-Semitic. Your faith comes up over and over again. I personally think people are a little obsessed with it, but here we are, and the Democratic Party has been split apart as well over this support-for-Israel issue.

You have a very nuanced position. Number 1, how are you dealing with that personally—the anti-Semitism? To me, as somebody who grew up in Brooklyn with lots of Jewish friends and all kinds of different people, it’s insane to think that Jewish students—or any particular group of students—are being chased by other students at Columbia University because they’re Jewish. This chaos is just heartbreaking.

As a Jewish person who has literally experienced it firsthand, how are you doing with that?

I appreciate it. Look, we should separate this and have 2 conversations: one about Israel and one about anti-Semitism, because you kind of blurred both in that question. Let’s focus first on anti-Semitism. I have been very outspoken about those who are engaging in anti-Semitism and peddling words that are anti-Semitic.

And importantly, I've been critical of people on the political left and on the political right. I think anti-Semitism is a problem in our society, and it is a problem on the left and on the right. I think it is important that we call it out. We call it out whether we're in an interview—

Yeah. A conversation.

A conversation, yeah. Call it out on social media. And then we just call it out in our communities, in our daily lives, wherever we see it.

On that, there should be no nuance. We should be able to come together—people who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim—and all agree that hatred and bigotry in any form directed at a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, anyone, has no place. And, by the way, it makes us all less safe. So we have to focus on speaking out against that. No nuance on that.

Yeah.

On the issue of Israel, the Middle East, and the war in Iran and Gaza, there's a lot of nuance there. I'm happy to answer your questions on that, but I think on the issue of anti-Semitism, we have got to be in a place where we universally condemn it.

I think what you're seeing from some folks on the right and some folks on the left is that they'll only call it out if it's said by a political opponent or someone they disagree with. And I frankly respect people on the right, like Ted Cruz, who have called it out within the Republican Party. I've tried to call it out when it rears its ugly head in my party. It is important that it be universally condemned.

So easy to do. Let's tackle the issue of Israel. I would say every Jewish American person I know, when I ask them about this issue, obviously sees the incredible tragedy of October 7. Going and collecting the hostages seems like a reasonable thing to do. I was there for 9/11; it seems like a pretty analogous situation. This has to be settled, and the United States went and did what it had to do in Afghanistan and took out Iraq for extra measure. It's a whole other diversion.

But 100% of folks say they don't agree with Netanyahu's approach to what happened in Gaza. And then folks feel—a decent number of people, whether it's reality or not—that America's getting dragged into this war with Iran under false pretenses and because Israel is pushing us to do it.

So let's take these 2 issues separately. I'm curious to understand your position on this. Are you part of the Jewish American diaspora that believes, “Hey, Israel has a right to defend itself, but maybe Gaza went too far”?

Okay. Well, first off, let me say this: I don't view this issue as a Jewish American, as you said. I view this issue as an American. I approach this by trying to understand what is the best thing for America, which to me is having peace and stability in the Middle East. That's how I approach these issues.

I've been clear and consistent about this long before October 7: I think Netanyahu, the leader of Israel, is someone who's been leading Israel down a dangerous and isolated path. I think he has made Israel more isolated in the world community. He has fractured what used to be nonpartisan, or bipartisan, American support for Israel. And I think he has put Israel in a very dangerous place.

Of course, he was the leader of Israel who wasn't minding the shop when October 7 happened. So I've been very critical of Netanyahu for years and years and years. I've also, for years, made very clear that I think America's interests in the region should be stability and peace, and that it would be my hope that you would have 2 states living peacefully side by side: Israel and a Palestinian state.

Now, I realize that is a long way off, given where we are right now. But it is clear that we need to work toward that. And obviously, that Palestinian state cannot be led by Hamas, which is a terrorist organization. There has to be some structure put in place in order to create that.

As it relates to the war, which you also asked about in your question, this was a war of choice. The president never defined the objectives. I don't know how the hell to get out of this. We'll see what he ultimately does with his big threats.

We're recording this on the eve of his big threat—

Using language that was so offensive—excuse my language—that diminished the value of human life.

We'll see what he ultimately does. Does he chicken out, as he usually does, or does, God forbid, he go through with that?

This was a war of choice. He didn't know why he got into it. He didn't know how the hell to get out of it. America's—

Why did he get into it? Handicap?

America's national security interests have not been well served by this. And economically, you've talked about this: economically, we are worse off because of this war. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to speak over you.

No, no. I mean, listen, I appreciate your candidness, Governor. Why did he do it? If you had to handicap it, or what are you hearing when you talk? You obviously have a lot more information than the average American.

Why now? Why did we do this now? We had done the strategic trimming of the hedges, the mowing of the lawn—whatever the term is—to get rid of the nuclear program. That containment seemed like a perfect strategy, and then all of a sudden we decide we're going to do regime change.

This is after Trump promised that he would never get in and do an intervention like this in the Middle East. This is after we were told by the Republicans, “Do not vote for a crazy Democrat who will take us to war with Iran.” And here we are in month 14 or 13 of the Trump presidency, and he started a war.

Yeah. His own biggest advocates, from Megyn Kelly to Tucker Carlson and people on the fringe, Alex Jones, and everybody in the middle—the comedians who supported him, the podcast diaspora, the podcast bros—they're all fleeing the ship. They did not want this.

So here we are. Why did he do this? Why now? What is your handicapping of it?

Well, I'll answer that. I will just say it's yet another broken promise to the people who put him in power. He screwed over the farmers who put him in power. He told people he wouldn't slash Medicaid. He cut Medicaid. He told people he'd bring down prices. Prices have skyrocketed because of his tariffs. He's got this long string of broken promises.

Now, why did he break this particular promise? Let's examine the record. First, Rubio went out and said he did it because if we didn't move then, Netanyahu was going to move and force our hand. Then they walked it back. He said 7 or 8 months ago that they had destroyed their nuclear capabilities, and then came back 7 or 8 months later and said, “We had to go in because we had to destroy their nuclear capabilities.” I don't know.

Then they said it was about regime change. Well, great. I mean, we went from an 80-something-year-old ayatollah to a 60-something-year-old ayatollah who, by all accounts, seems to be far more hard-line. I'd hardly call that successful regime change.

So, to me, it's hard to know how to answer that question. You've seen I've been trying to be very forthright in answering your questions.

You're doing good.

I don't know how to answer that question because the president never answered it. He never sat in the Oval Office and looked the American people in the eye and said, “This is why we're going in.”

And you know what? This isn't semantics. This isn't politics. If you don't know why you're going in, you don't know how the hell to get out. You don't know how to instruct the military—our brave military, including those 13 souls who did not make it home to their families because they went on a mission that the president never defined.

We mourn their loss. We thank our military heroes for what they did. We thank our military, who are out working every day on behalf of our freedom, our safety, and our security. But they deserve a commander in chief who would have defined the mission. And if you define the mission, you know how to get out.

He never defined the mission. I don't know, ultimately, if he will follow through on his threat. Again, it's Tuesday afternoon as you and I are talking. We'll see ultimately what he does here. But to me, this has been a failed and compromised mission from the beginning because he never made clear why he was going in.

Yeah, and I know you've got to go in a moment. It does seem to me that sometimes people hear their first reaction, and their first statement is the true statement, just in general. It does seem like Israel was going to do this, and we joined them, and we didn't need to.

And to your point about Afghanistan—pardon me—America should never be led around by any other nation. It should always be about America's interests, our national security interests, and the interest of expanding freedom and opportunity for the American people. We should never, ever be bullied, as maybe President Trump was, by any other world leader.

Back to the anti-Semitism we're experiencing now: you said, “Hey, let's address them separately.” But I don't think you can separate them if we're getting pulled into this war by another nation and people believe, like you and I do, “Hey, Netanyahu maybe went a little too far here.” That's what's causing the anti-Semitism in this country, don't you think? This relationship with Israel, the state of Israel, and Netanyahu—

I think you have to be—

Support for Netanyahu isn't what's causing the anti-Semitism here. That's what these young people seem to be saying: “We don't want to vote for somebody who supports Netanyahu.”

Well, I think you have to be real careful on that. You mean the collective, not you individually.

I mean, if you're suggesting that Jews are Israel and reflect Israeli policies and support everything Israel does, that's one of the oldest anti-Semitic tropes out there, this sort of notion of dual loyalty. I think it is fair to vote on the issue of whether we support what Donald Trump is doing relative to Netanyahu. That's fair. But to suggest that somehow it's because Jews are tied to Israel and that's why—

Well, you and I can parse this issue very easily. But young people at Columbia or Harvard, where all this is going on, in these pro-Palestinian protests, they don't seem to be able to make that parse. That seems to be one of the roots of the problems here, that people do put together—

Yeah.

These young people could be stupid, they could be misinformed, but they do put together what the state of Israel is doing and equate it with Judaism. That's what I've tried.

And that's why I'm trying to be so outspoken on this and make clear that on anti-Semitism, there should be no nuance. That's a conversation where we should all be able to unite. We have to protect a place for nuance when it comes to Middle East policy, when it comes to Israel, when it comes to Iran, and anything happening in the Middle East.

We need to give space for those who want to peacefully—and I want to stress, peacefully—protest. We want to give space to those who differ from the administration, and frankly, those who support the administration, to be able to go out and protest peacefully. That is an important part of the fabric of our American society.

I just think it's important. I try to do this work every day as governor, to keep those conversations separate and avoid blurring the lines in a way that creates some dangers. I think it's something we have to guard against.

And you could be super critical of Israel, and you could love your Jewish neighbors and friends. This is a very simple concept here.

And I think that reflects where I am on many things. I've been super critical of the Israeli government, the Netanyahu government, and I'm someone who loves Israel, someone who has spent time in Israel. I wrote a whole book about it, proposed to my wife there, and I think the idea of it is important.

We've got to figure out ways to keep those 2 conversations separate and avoid blurring the lines in a way that creates some dangers. I think it's something we have to guard against.

Yeah, lots of education, lots of opportunities. Josh Shapiro, thank you so much for coming on All In. We look forward to having you on again, and good luck with your race. Good luck with your 76ers. I will see you in the second round, it looks like.

Next year—or next time I'm on—I'll be wearing a Sixers hoodie.

Go Knicks.

There you go.

I'll see you courtside, my friend. Do you go to the games?

I'm going all in.