Rachel (1:56)

We asked him about the party, we asked him about people within the party.

Van Jones (2:00)

Asked him about aipac.

Rachel (2:01)

Asked him about aipac. Yeah.

Van Jones (2:03)

Oh, my God. Ask him about Israel, all of this stuff. And the governor sat right there, answered the questions, and when he got. Got his dandruff. When he wanted to get his shit off, he got his shit off.

Rachel (2:13)

Yeah.

Van Jones (2:14)

No further ado. You guys decide for yourself. Gavin Newsom on higher learning. This episode is brought to you by Hyundai, the all new 2026 Hyundai Palisade Hybrid doesn't just turn heads. It commands respect with its stunning exterior, luxurious interior with available captain seats and spacious third row seating. And equipped with advanced technology, you and the family are making a statement before you even step out. Okay, Hyundai. Visit HyundaiUSA.com to learn more and experience the all new 2026 Palisade Hybrid today.

Rachel (2:49)

Fall's finally here and Nordstrom is your go to for the best of fall fashion and the hottest trends of the season. Discover new arrivals from brands you love like Reformation, Free People, Mango Addicted, Princess Polly, Madewell and more. Perfect for refreshing your closet without overthinking your budget. And with free shipping, free returns and easy in store pickup, shopping's never been easier. So go ahead, shop in stores on Nordstrom.com or download the Nordstrom app today.

Van Jones (3:18)

Okay, big moment here. We have somebody that you guys might recognize joining us on Higher Learning today. Governor of California and who knows what else after that.

Gavin Newsom (3:31)

Ex governor of California.

Van Jones (3:32)

Ex governor of California.

Gavin Newsom (3:33)

Future ex governor of California, but future.

Van Jones (3:36)

Maybe some other things and we'll talk about that. Gavin Newsom joins us today on Higher Learning. How you doing?

Gavin Newsom (3:41)

Good to be with you. Good to be.

Van Jones (3:42)

Before we even get into it, I want to start with some mess.

Gavin Newsom (3:44)

Oh, we're going right. That's going right into it.

Van Jones (3:47)

Governor, you're in the belly, just like you know.

Gavin Newsom (3:49)

How's your day?

Van Jones (3:50)

Breakfast?

Gavin Newsom (3:51)

Don't have time.

Van Jones (3:52)

It's too high level jumping.

Gavin Newsom (3:53)

Right.

Rachel (3:53)

The sentiment's there.

Gavin Newsom (3:54)

You get it.

Rachel (3:55)

You get it.

Van Jones (3:55)

I want to get your response. Now. I saw that you responded to Twitter, but I want to give you the on Twitter. I want to give you a chance to respond on video to something that's been making rounds. Donnie, cue up Joe Rogan's thoughts on Gavin Newsom.

Gavin Newsom (4:08)

Oh, which ones? Yeah. Jesus. They don't have any faith in Gavin Newsome. Oh, which is kind of funny because.

Van Jones (4:14)

He wants to be president so bad.

Ryan Grimm (4:16)

That's what it, that's sure what it looks like.

Gavin Newsom (4:18)

You can't ruin a city and then.

Van Jones (4:20)

Go on to ruin a state and say, guys, that was just practice.

Ryan Grimm (4:24)

I know.

Gavin Newsom (4:24)

Once I get it as a president, I'm going to fix it. I fix it all.

Van Jones (4:27)

I mean, it's so crazy, but he's such a great politician.

Gavin Newsom (4:29)

I mean, he's so smooth. No, no, I think he's terrible.

Ryan Grimm (4:32)

How's he remained in power for so long?

Gavin Newsom (4:34)

Low competition. There's no one who is competing against him.

Van Jones (4:38)

There's no sense.

Ryan Grimm (4:39)

I should say he's not a good.

Van Jones (4:40)

I should say Smooth. He comes.

Gavin Newsom (4:41)

I mean, he's a good artist.

Van Jones (4:43)

Yeah, that's what I mean.

Gavin Newsom (4:44)

But it's like what the things that he says when he gets confronted. Why are you making me watch this? I don't watch this stuff. But I'm. Look, he's been attacking me for years and years and years and won't have me on the show. Joe, why won't you have me on the show? He won't have me on the show. It's one way. And he has guests coming and attacking and bashing, but he will not have me on the show, period, full stop. He should have me on the show. Let's have it. Let's do it, Joe.

Rachel (5:09)

Or you should have him on your podcast.

Gavin Newsom (5:11)

Come on my show, Joe. Yeah, no, I'm just. But it's, it's interesting. So I've never had a beef. I have no issues with him, but he has developed deep issues, animus with me. I did a. Interesting. Just to show you how much I'm in his head, I went on Sean Ryan's podcast. Sean's a rock star. Incredible guy. Was a three plus hour, almost four hour podcast and he did a.

Van Jones (5:34)

He.

Gavin Newsom (5:34)

The first question was from his friend. He said, well, I gotta, you know, call a friend type thing. And it was Joe Rogan. And taking that was the opening question on the song. I'm like, Jesus, this, this Rogan guy has got, you know, he's definitely in his head. So anyway, Joe, bring it on, let's go. I mean, I, you know, again, I got no beef with him. He's got a beef with me. Attack my state. Then I got, you know, I got a different sort of sensibility in terms of my desire to protect, preserve and promote.

Van Jones (6:06)

If I was asking you to get in his head, the things that he was saying there, what do you think he's talking about? I don't know.

Gavin Newsom (6:12)

I mean, I didn't even. I barely watched what you.

Van Jones (6:14)

The perception of it, the perception of California, the perception of some of the problems that face the state and maybe how some of the people around the.

Gavin Newsom (6:21)

Country might think there's California derangement syndrome and he's part of it. I mean, I think people are obsessed with focusing on what's wrong with the state and not what's right with the state. I mean, you have more scientists, engineers, more researchers, more Nobel laureates in the state than any other state in the nation. We're the fourth largest economy in the world, $4.1 trillion. We're the finest system of higher education that Addresses the issue of equity better than any other public education system in the world. We dominate in every category. Name it. We're the biggest manufacturing state, biggest farming state, ranchers and hunting jobs, which is interesting. We dominate in AI and quantum and fusion in every key category. The, the quality of life here. Consistently you look at the top 10 cities in the United States of America. Consistently the top five are identified in the state of California. And we invent the future. It happens here first where America's coming attraction. What I think doesn't attract people that tend to be on the spectrum of his politics is our diversity. We're the most diverse state in the world's most diverse democracy. We're a majority minority state. 27% of this state is foreign born. And that offends a lot of people.

Van Jones (7:30)

You think Joe Rogan has a problem?

Gavin Newsom (7:32)

I don't know. I said of his, you know, they tend to align sometimes with him. I didn't say him. But some folks in the far right, the primetime lineup at Fox, for example, that's almost made a living out of trying to tear down California. And it makes sense because everything they're promoting runs contrary to what California is doing and how we're succeeding. How do we continue to thrive despite all of their rhetoric? I mean, you look at the gut. I mean, look at across the board productivity. Wages in the state of California dominate compared to other red states. The biggest murder states in America are red states. Eight of the top ten. Dependency. You talk about dependency. Texas is a taker state. California in 2023, $83.1 billion. We gave more to the federal government than we received. Texas took $71.1 billion. I mean, so you go down the list as it relates to deaths of despair, as it relates to loneliness, lower wages, higher death rates, higher infant mortality, maternal mortality, lower life expectancy, all in these red states compared to the blue states. And their state of mind is just dominantly criticizing the most vibrant and dynamic state in America. I find that rather curious, honestly.

Van Jones (8:50)

Well, how do you feel about the fact that right now we're, you know, in the middle of a massive affordability problem and California is the tip of the spear for that 15% of California residents right now can afford the average home.

Gavin Newsom (9:05)

In that way, California, it's a major crisis.

Van Jones (9:07)

So I mean, when you hear the things that Joe Rogan is saying, and we on this podcast battle back and forth with Joe Rogan and that type of politic and that thinking all the time, but when you hear that there is a cohort of People that feel like the state is too expensive for them. They can't live the American dream here. They can't afford a home here. And that could have explained some of the exodus that you saw to places like Austin or Florida or other places like that where things might, well, we.

Gavin Newsom (9:35)

Per capita more Floridians moving to California than Californians moving to Florida. Our population's been growing over year to year to year. And he's just making that stuff up. That's why I don't want me on the show.

Van Jones (9:45)

Right. Affordability of homes like that.

Gavin Newsom (9:49)

On the issue of affordability, it explains more things in more ways on more days about problems in California. Issues of housing supply, demand, imbalance. Been that case for decades now. We're as dumb as we want to be. Got to get out of our own way. We got to build more damn housing. That's why I literally tied my budget last year to the most significant housing reforms in California history. That's why I'm about to sign one of the most significant housing bills in, you know, years in California as it relates to density bonuses around transit corridors. We're moving from a NIMBY mindset, not in my backyard, to this YIMBY mindset. And we're being very aggressive. Let me be more specific. Not only are we promoting reforms in terms of the regulatory system that's slowing down development of more housing to address the affordability challenge, but I also created a housing accountability unit where we're quite literally suing cities that are not producing enough housing. The state of California has a state of mind that is completely aligned with that critique. And that's why we've been very aggressive. Because at the end of the day, forgive the vernacular, localism is determinative, meaning states, vision is realized locally. We don't build the housing, we create the conditions. And so cities like Huntington beach refuse to even zone housing, let alone build housing. So we sued them. This affordability framework is not complicated. It's Econ 101. And we have been more robust in the reforms with this abundance mindset. Ezra Klein talking a lot about that. And we're aligned with that. And so it is the issue that explains the big critique that is completely legitimate, right, as it relates to the state of California and has been for decades and decades. And it's the one issue that I'm most proud that we've tackled in terms of policy changes head on. But the rationalization of those policies need to be promoted and realized ultimately locally. And that's something that needs to take shape and that's why we're being very aggressive and it hasn't yet. And it's also something taking shape all across the country.

Van Jones (11:54)

Sure.

Gavin Newsom (11:55)

There's affordability issue is the issue that defines, I think the greatest stress for people 30 and younger in this country and why they are increasingly tapped out of both political parties and pissed off because we're not delivering for them. And so housing. Amen, man. Is the legitimate claim of critique in this state.

Van Jones (12:15)

Do you think this affordability issue even in Northern California, San Francisco used to be the mayor, just so people know you have an $18 minimum wage there and the average one bedroom home is one bedroom apartment shut is $3,000 a month. Do you think that this issue is a broader issue that has to do with maybe a critique and controls on American capitalism? California for example, has hosted and been very giving and loving and nurturing to a lot of the Silicon Valley companies that have come here and called Northern California home. And that has result in breathtaking income inequality and affordability issues for the regular people of California, the average people. And that's something that we've seen explode across the country as Americans seem to be left behind by their government in favor of the richest 1% of the country. How do we deal with that in a more broad sense than just looking at it?

Gavin Newsom (13:17)

So that's a foundational question about know, free enterprise and capitalism. And that's an issue for a 30 year trend line that's now a headline as it relates to wealth, not just income inequality.

Van Jones (13:28)

Well, I actually meant to say wealth.

Gavin Newsom (13:29)

Yeah, yeah. And, and, and look, that's underscored by the fact that you have quite literally 2/3 the wealth in the hands of just 10% of the population. That same 10%, by the way, that's about 50% of consumer spending in this country. And so it's increasingly in the hands of fewer and few people. And that's why people like Bernie Sanders are so resonant and so popular and have such a strong base Zora as well. And yeah, people like that, that understand that fundamentally and foundationally. Now to understand is not to achieve any, any outcome. Meaning one, identifying a problem is one thing, actually what you do to promote it. So our philosophy, my philosophy and the work we've done here in the state is about yes, growth. We promote it. It's a point of pride, innovation, entrepreneurialism. I don't want to stifle that. I'm one of those Democrats, with all due respect, not, I don't begrudge other people's Success. I admire the hell out of it. I'm someone that comes from a private sector background. I open a small restaurant and wine store right out of college. One part time employee, Pat Kelly, and she passed away a year and a half ago. God bless her. Started with pen to paper, $7,500 and got 13 investors and built that to 21 small businesses, about a thousand employees. And I'm not saying that to impress you, but to impress upon you my passion for entrepreneurialism. So I want to make that clear. But I'm also not naive that businesses can't thrive in a world that's failing. And that's what you've just described. And that's why this notion of growth has to also be attached to inclusion. And so our framework goes like this. You mentioned the $18 minimum wage. I want to have. I have a thing or two that I can say about this because I've got some receipts as a former mayor that promoted that minimum wage back then 118, but it's adjusted for inflation. That promoted a minimum wage in the state of California. Let me be even more specific. I am the only governor that can claim this. I got a lot of shit for this and continue to get a lot of shit for this.

Van Jones (15:26)

I love that you didn't ask if you could curse.

Rachel (15:28)

Oh, sorry, you can't.

Gavin Newsom (15:30)

You can. Well, you start with Joe Rogan, I'm gonna start cursing.

Van Jones (15:34)

Right?

Gavin Newsom (15:35)

$20 minimum wage for fast food workers. You know, and I, I worked my ass off with SEIU to get that done. And by the way, they're not even members of that union. But their cause of social and racial justice, because that is about economic, social and racial justice. Disproportionate number of women work in fast food. And they're not just young kids now working summer jobs there. They're working full time. And why the hell should someone be working full time in a major corporation that ends up on damn welfare, ends up on the public dole. I also promoted and supported a $25 minimum wage for health care workers that don't exist anywhere in the United States. Not just the baseline minimum wage. The largest earned income tax credit in the United States of America. And we extended it for i10 holders. And I know that offends people like that and others as it relates to those without immigration status. Points of pride. I also believe that our interventions come too late. So we're having a systemic conversation. People are not left behind. They start behind. And that's why I have focused effort on prenatal care, which is under focused and under resourced on pre Head Start. Not just Head Start. And I literally just came, no bullshit, just came from a press conference with the Unified School District Superintendent here in la promoting the fact that we just saw significant increases in test scores that disproportionately outperformed the nation for black and Latino students in every subject matter, in every grade, in every CoH. But I also promoted our interventions where we created a brand new grade, pre K for all and how important pre K is for everyone after school for all. $4.4 billion this year, nine hours of enrichment, including 30 days of summer school. I'm giving you a long answer because there's no flippant response to the systemic issues that you highlight that need to be addressed in this country. And I'm proud of that work. Proud of the work with 200,000 new slots for childcare and subsidizing childcare in this state. And the work we're trying to do across the spectrum, spectrum of affordability, including the largest tax rebate in U.S. history, $18.6 billion, which Rogan is not even aware of and doesn't give a damn about. And so all those things matter. But I'll conclude on this, what also matters is tax policy, which goes to, I think, the core of your question and sort of the appeal of people like Mandani and that extent, people like Bernie. California has a progressive tax structure. That's the real reason these, a lot of these folks left, right? Come on, let's have this conversation. Yeah, they don't like progressive tax. They like regressive tax policy. Where's Rogan live? In one of the most regressive tax states in America that tax poor people. More poor people are taxed more than the richest 1% in Texas, places like Florida. That's what they celebrate, they promote. They are high tax states, but not for them. You can't claim California is a high tax state. High tax for who? The 1% progressive tax state. Regressive taxes persist in these red states, particularly these large red states. And I think that is a state of mind that also is something that I believe in and needs to be promoted in relationship to your question around wealth and income and inequality. And I'll tell you, it was interesting. I had on my podcast Steve Bannon, who was making a case. He didn't say the word California, but he sure as hell sounded like someone making the case for California's tax policy again, the same policy that Elon Musk and Rogan and all these Guys decry and criticize.

Rachel (19:12)

Do you see California as a model for a more populous Democratic Party? And do you think that the Democrats need a clear economic populist message?

Gavin Newsom (19:23)

100%. Look, the issue of our time is cost of living. Period. Full stop. Period, full stop. And this is, I talked about 30 and younger, but with intention. 30 year olds are the first, the first generation in history of this country where 30 year olds are not doing better than their parents. And they're pissed. I mean, I was, you know, I'm doing these gaming podcast platforms just listening to young folks call and they're pissed. They're like, you know, they're, they, they had some sensibility. Maybe Trump was the real deal and they want to change. And some, you know, we saw the numbers reflect. They kind of came on board multiculturally. Not just white dudes, mostly white dudes, but. Yeah, but, you know, that's right, but, but young men, you know, broadly that just feel, by the way, that are in crisis in terms of, you know, dropout rates and suicide rates that are forex girls, the issues around, you know, just achievement gaps and even just college going young men versus women. I mean, this is a crisis. What's happened to young men. And the Republican Party at least attached themselves that Rogan, to his credit, sort of attached himself to that manosphere, but they've kind of exploited it and they haven't done anything to address the underlying issues. The Democratic Party hasn't either, but we didn't even talk about it. And so we need to own that because it goes fundamentally, the issue of a populist economic message, address the issue of cost of living and address this crisis that's going on with young men, but also crisis of opportunity that people are feeling in a society of haves and have nots. And so, you know, this is the issue right now. We also have the issue situationally of Donald Trump. And so how do you promote solutions and a strategy for a positive alternative to Trump and Trumpism at the same time? You're dealing with this existential threats of this lawlessness that's occurring in real time all across this country with Trump, where he wants to replace the rule of law with the rule of dawn. And so that's the sort of dialectic I think we're having as Democrats is how to balance both because people want us. And that's what Mandani's done effectively to be focusing on those pocketbook issues. But for me, that tension in the most un trumped state in America is how we balance those two yeah, but.

Rachel (21:43)

How do you like it feels like you talked a little bit about messaging and it seems like we played. We played Joe Rogan at the beginning and, you know, he said what he said and he's been saying it for years and he won't have you on. But it seems like there's a lot of untruths. There's just a lot of lies. There's just not a lot of evidence to really back up the things that he's saying. But yet it resonates with so many people. And we talk about this all the time on the podcast and you alluded to it a little bit in talking about the messaging. Why is it that the Democrats continue. It seems like they continue to lose the narrative. Why is it that they can't. It doesn't resonate with the audience that you were talking about with the gamers. What is it that they can do to challenge that? We see what you're doing on social media. Fan of it, but it's a little bit of kind of playing similar to the way that they do. Not a little bit.

Gavin Newsom (22:30)

It is.

Rachel (22:31)

Is that what you feel like the Democrats need to do?

Van Jones (22:33)

Do they feel.

Rachel (22:34)

You feel like they need to get embedded with them a little bit more and play a little bit more of that to resonate with them? Like what is. How do we connect and not lose the narrative anymore so the messaging can get through? Because you named all these things that California's doing, yet people want to hold onto the things that Joe Rogan's saying.

Gavin Newsom (22:49)

Yeah, including those test scores. We suck at messaging. Democrat party. You kidding? These guys just dominate in the messaging game. I mean, I was watching. You know, I'm old enough to remember this guy, Ron DeSantis from Florida just four years ago, who was censoring historical facts, rewriting history, rewrote the Damn. His social studies book in his state. Taking Rosa Parks race out of the curriculum around civil rights. Literally. They drafted a social studies book that took Rosa Park's race out of the social. Because of the Anti Woke act, the don't say Gay bill, which was literally gag orders not only for teachers, but in private corporate boardrooms. They were on a banning binge. You saw just two years ago, 4340. I think that's an actual number. Books were banned in this country, libraries and schools. Republicans promoting that crt, D, E, I, E, S, G, Anything with three letters. But they all had one thing in common, this sort of anti Woke thing. It's anti black, period. Full stop. And I say all that to underscore your point because they were winning and they continue to win on that message. Where the hell is my party? Why aren't we pushing back? Why aren't we shape shifting, kicking our ass, asymmetry on Fox every goddamn night, weaponizing grievance, othering people, talking down, belittling people, somehow being celebrated for that. And we're constantly chasing it. We're on the receiving end of all of this as they shapeshift CRT where no one even knows what the hell it is. Where, where do you find it? And so I started a process of iterating. So I want to not just identify again the problem again. I was trying to sort of figure out how to be accountable. And I started going on Fox. You know, I spent an hour and a half with Sean Hannity, invited him. I said unedited, I said the only thing, man, is like, no editing. Like let's just go. And you gotta take as long as you want and you can bring all your notes, have all your producers prepare for that. And we had this unedited and to his credit, they did multiple segments on that and put all, all of it out. Then I ended up doing a damn debate with Ron Desantis and you know, on Fox with Hannity, basically teen everything up for him, shape shifting House, California sucks and everything. And defend yourself Newsom and started going on one American News and Newsmax and you know, trying to. And I also started a pack, forgive me, politicians start, but I did it with intent where I went only to red states because Democrats aren't even showing up in Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas. We've turned our back on our own party and our own people in these states in order to answer your question. And right now I'm also trying to do that iterating still not only having a podcast with Marshawn lynch called Politicking, which we're about to have our second season in my own podcast that I'm doing separately where I, Charlie Kirk on and Bannon and these folks, Newt Gingrich who's promoting my recall.

Van Jones (25:34)

And we're going to get to it.

Gavin Newsom (25:35)

We're going to get to all that good, you know, and why I have no problem with Rogan, except he apparently has a problem he doesn't want me on, which is just interesting. These guys, I just think that's sign of weakness, not strength. And I think that's underpinning in all this. And I say weakness intentionally, Trump is weakness masquerading as strength. Who threatens to, you know, jail elected officials, all of this about is weakness across the spectrum. And I will underscore the biggest brand problem with the Democratic Party is we are the ones that appear weak in the core. You can look at all the issues. At the end of the day, what undergirds our toxicity of our brand is a sense that we are weak. We are not able to achieve our goals. We're not even able to communicate them. And so I'm just trying to get us back on an offense. And the social media again, that I, that I've been up there, is putting a mirror to Trump. And we're going hard. Rogan doesn't like who's. Who the hell has ever called Rogan a chicken? Said, why the hell do you mean? People won't touch these guys. But we're punching. I'm punching Trump every day. You hit us, you hit my state. You. I'm going back. We're imperfect. We got homelessness. We got problems. Give me a break. So does every goddamn state. You never talk about those states. Pisses me off. So I love this place. I love what it represents. And I also love my party and what it represents and who we stand for and the fundamental issues of racial justice, social justice, economic justice, man, that's what this party's about. But we're not communicating it. So I'm just trying to get out there. Hell, that's why I'm on with you, man. And just trying to get us back on message and getting basically shape. Shifting the narrative and not responding to their narrative is the point.

Van Jones (27:23)

You talked a little bit about crt. You talked a little bit about dei, the way that race has been weaponized on the riot as a rallying cry. I asked you a question that ensnared Kamala Harris. Friend of yours ensnared Jim Clyburn. But a question that I never see mainstream white political figures asked. Do you think America is a racist country?

Gavin Newsom (27:51)

That's a tough one. I mean, it's a loaded question in this respect. It's an easy question, right? From your perspective, from many people's perspectives. And it should be an easy question to answer, I think. I mean, racism persists in extraordinary ways institutionally. It's certainly enshrined in so many ways, and we've been trying to unpack that in deeply meaningful ways. And we're constantly dealing and battling with racism on a daily basis. And we're seeing the assault and the weapon of race as it relates to all these anti woke and DEI efforts coming in the Trump administration. So, yes, there are deeply racist things that are going on all across the United States of America do, I think, fundamentally in our core. And that's why it goes to a more loaded and difficult question. I think the vast, overwhelming majority of people don't believe that they're racist and. And don't honestly believe that this is a racist country. And. And that's. That's challenging. And how we can communicate more situational awareness. Are you paying attention? What's going on? What. What's happening out there? Who's getting pulled over, who's actually being prosecuted and who's not? What's happening with these laws and how they're implemented and effectuated, who they advantage and who they disadvantage. The fact that we've never fully come to grips with our past, and I think that's the balancing act for all of us, is how we're able to have that conversation and bring people over as opposed to point fingers and say, you are racist, and then we turn people off.

Van Jones (29:27)

The reason why I asked, Governor, is because I think it's actually a really important conversation. I'll tell you why. So here in Los Angeles county, or in Los Angeles, you have the median wealth of a black and Latino family at around, I think, $4,000. The median wealth of a white family is around $388,000. If not for a fundamental systemic racial issue, these disparities exist everywhere. I can point them out. We've talked about them here on the podcast. In Boston, it's 8 bucks to 200. In Baltimore, it's 80,000 bucks to $0 worth of wealth for black people. If not for intense, prolonged systemic racism, where a system in a country picks winners and losers, how do you explain that disparity?

Gavin Newsom (30:26)

No, that's why I was out there signing the Bruce's beach law. That's why I signed the first reparations bill in the United States of America. You're talking to the governor that literally led that I just created. I just signed a bill two days ago with the Black Caucus as it relates to creating a new office to address these systemic issues and try. I've been very progressive in terms of the bills that I've promoted, not just signed, to start to unpack all of those issues. I couldn't agree more. That's why I referenced a moment ago these systemic issues that are real and the fact that we fundamentally have not come to grips with that past. And that's why I took my kids to the south for spring break two years ago, to get them to understand the world they're living in. That persists to this day. And that's why I highlighted the assault that Donald Trump and guys like Ron DeSantis have advanced in this country. Continue advance, which again, is a war on black folks disproportionately. Again, that's why I said anti woke is nothing more than anti black. So I don't disagree with all that. And so we have to own a response to that.

Van Jones (31:26)

Is there a way to say to answer yes to that question? But then also, because sometimes I'll tell you how I really feel. And you know what? I appreciate you being here and I appreciate you not wearing the suit. And, you know, it feels like we can talk. Like, we're talking. We're talking. We're trying to figure out what we're doing in the future. We're talking the reason why for a lot of people, it's important for that, for someone to say yes to that question. I understand what the situation that Vice President Harris was in. That.

Gavin Newsom (31:52)

Remind me, what did she say exactly that question? I can't honestly don't remember.

Van Jones (31:56)

She said no.

Rachel (31:57)

She said no.

Gavin Newsom (31:58)

She said no.

Van Jones (31:58)

But.

Gavin Newsom (31:59)

And I think for a lot of the. When I was trying to unpack the response for many of those reasons. Right.

Van Jones (32:04)

But if I may.

Gavin Newsom (32:05)

Yeah, no, forgive me.

Van Jones (32:06)

Yeah. But the reason why it's important is because we know that it is. Right? Like, we know that it is. We know that the foundation of the country was racism in America is older than America. Like, my ancestors were enslaved here before the English expatriates here decided to start their own country. And our utility in America has never, ever, ever been about our genius, about our perseverance, about our ability to achieve in the country. We've done all of that in spite of. In spite of an effort on the soil where we exist to minimize us and kill us. And it seems as if we can't quite reconcile that. If we don't agree, that is a thing. So sometimes when we're having conversations, and I know it's a fiery thing and it's an incendiary deal, but sometimes we just want to be like, yeah, it is, but it doesn't always have to be. But if we can't do the first part, it doesn't seem like we can do the same.

Gavin Newsom (33:15)

No, I hear you. No, I mean, I think my response reflects that deeper understanding of the structural issues and the institutional issues that we're trying to unwind in real time. And so I think it's an active effort to sort of unpack that and also find some responsibility and accountability. In the process. And that I think, look, I. We're hardly perfect, but I'm really proud of what we've been able to achieve in California in that respect. And we've led the country in that respect, trying to own up to that past and the sins of the past and present and fight the war and the assault on the black community and the racist policies that are being emanated out of this White House, including the Supreme Court that said you can racially profile people on the streets and goddamn sidewalk walks on the basis of their skin color in the shadow docket, literally, that just happened in 2025. So it's not just, you know, 1825. Yeah, to your point. So, no, I hear you deeply and I don't want to suggest that I'm walking away from that. Quite the contrary. I'm taking responsibility and ownership to try to address those issues in a meaningful and substantive way and, you know, is imperfect and is inadequate often as we are, or I am certainly to the task.

Rachel (34:28)

You talked about your podcast and you talked about having Charlie Kirk on there, Steve Bannon, and there were a lot of people who were critical about the decision to have them on your podcast, specifically the first guest being Charlie Kirk. And I think a lot of the criticism was kind of like, okay, there's this line of, are you platforming right wing voices or are they on there for you to challenge some of the things that they, they promote or they fight for? And I guess the question I would ask you is where we are right now, I've heard you talk about it. Our democracy is at stake. That's how we feel.

Ryan Grimm (35:02)

There's.

Rachel (35:03)

We feel hopeless, we feel desperate. Is it the right time to platform those voices if they're, you're not particularly challenged them? And the reason I say that is because when you just spoke about DEI with us and crt, there was a passion there, you know, you, you, you laid out exactly how you feel about it. But when I listened to that podcast with Charlie Kirk, more of a he was talking. It wasn't necessarily a challenging or a pushback. What would you say to people who are critical about having voices like that on your podcast? If you're not going to necessarily challenge them or speak about it in the way that you just did, we should.

Van Jones (35:38)

Say that we are those voices, by the way.

Gavin Newsom (35:40)

Well, I mean, I'd say that was not the point of the podcast. I opened the podcast and this. If you're tuning in to tune up, up the, the back and forth, watch primetime cable, that's not why I did the platform. That's not why I did the podcast. But to suggest a platform. I had zero viewers. Zero. Who's platforming whom. When I had Charlie on, by the way, he was the one who said yes and flew out first. It wasn't my intent to have back to. Back to back sort of hardcore. Right. But divorce. I've said this. Divorce is not an option. We define the terms of our future. He exists. I could turn my back and act like he doesn't exist, but he. You know, until the tragic. I mean, unacceptable, tragic assassination, his. He was promoting. What he was promoting was making real inroads with young folks in college campuses. He was here at USC right before. In fact, I think the day or two before he came up for the podcast, he was down here. And I saw these unbelievable crowds. I mean, that was real in the work that he was putting out. And what he was able to achieve for Donald Trump was real. And you could deny it, we could dismiss it, but I thought it was important to understand it. And I'll tell you, the overwhelming majority of people didn't even know who the hell he was. Who's this guy you have on there? Yeah, now everyone knows. But I'm just honestly try to be a civil guy. I still work now to mean this sincerely. I still work with Donald Trump. I've been working Donald Trump longer than most as a Democratic governor back in Covid days, was out there in the tarmac with him. Phone calls. I just. I'm hardwired like that. And my pod. The purpose of my podcast is not to get in debates. I have no energy for that. That's what I do 24, 7 the rest of the damn week. I want to create a space where I can start to understand. And also, I think success leaves clues. There is power of emulation. Where the. Where's my party on college campuses? Where the hell is the Democratic Party? Where's our equivalent of Turning Point usa? Nowhere to be found. And that was the point of that podcast. Why is it when you're listening to Steve Bannon, everyone's like, how you have Steve Bannon on there? Why don't you talk about January 6th? Because everyone's talked about January 6th, and he's full of shit on this. But not everybody understood the populist message that he had. That sounded a lot like Bernie. It's not. I don't mean to offend Bernie, but you listen to some of that and you're like, whoa, that's interesting. I had more people say, I Didn't know that about Bannon.

Van Jones (38:10)

That's the issue. When I listened to you go back and forth with Steve Bannon, you were Gavin Newsom and he put on a costume. And it seems as if what has to happen when you're on there is that you have to take his costume off so that people know this is the guy that's on.

Rachel (38:25)

And that's the question. Is now the time to be doing that? Because I wonder, if you did have Joe Rogan on your podcast, would you let him say some of the things that he said without any type of pushback or debate?

Gavin Newsom (38:36)

Yeah, guys, I'm not. We all have a role to play. And I just told you, I'm not afraid to go. I'm punching Joe Rogan, okay? That son of bitch. Not used to that. And he's going to dismiss it, he's going to laugh it off. I mean, you know, tough guy, all that. But he's going to have me on, I don't know, certainly punching back and trump everyone else. I'm debating these sons of. I'm out there on these right wing shows. So I, I'm not scared to do that. That's not what I want to do with my podcast. I'm sorry. I mean, everyone else, that's what everybody else. You go do that. I'm trying to literally understand the world I'm living in because this isn't working. Things are up and people are scared and they don't know that their lives are going to get better. And I could, I could light flame and just continue to sort of put that. Or I could create an opportunity to say, man, you love your kids, too. I. Yeah. You care about your community. Yeah. You want to be connected to something bigger than yourself. God, I feel the same way. You know, we all want to be loved. We all need to be loved. And I'd like to find that common humanity as opposed to a damn litmus test of every single person I talk to and say, what were you 10 years ago on this? Why am I sitting down with you, you piece of. You weren't there with gay marriage when I was doing it 2004. You. You, you son of a beau. Anti this or that. I mean, I could go through that list of everyone in my middle ground, though.

Rachel (40:04)

Isn't there like a middle. You don't have to go that extreme, but you also don't have to, like, maybe have a conversation where it seems like it's like, I'm not trying to.

Gavin Newsom (40:13)

Be Joe Rogan on my podcast. I'm just trying to honestly explore and understand the world I'm living in. And if you think I'm not being aggressive enough in my day job. Not that, I mean, well, that's. But that's, you know, I mean, I don't know that anyone's punching as hard as I am as a politician, and maybe they are, but we're also punching above our weight. I mean, we propped 50 on the damn ballot. They didn't expect that. I've raised a hundred million dollars in six weeks. We're not screwing around. This is not just style, it's substance we're trying to bring to the fight. But I'm going to have a podcast and forgive me, the good news is no one has to listen. You don't have to listen. Don't. Don't tune in if you don't like Newt Gingrich. Don't tune in if you don't like Frank Luntz. Don't tune in if you don't like this guy Michael Savage, who's the OG of all this language. Borders. Right? I mean, don't listen. And you know, if you don't want to listen to Pritzker and Kotech, who I'm having on in a few hours, you don't have to listen to that either. But I just, I'm married in a big Republican family. I love these guys, man. I love my father in law. I love him. He's an amazing human being, amazing father, man. I'm proud. I get teary eyed. What a goddamn example. He's an amazing father. And we totally disagree on politics. You know, why should I not?

Van Jones (41:32)

You know what's funny? You know, I'm glad we're having this conversation and because this is, this is what, you're talking to a black woman and you're talking to a black man and we're having these. So you love your father in law. That's beautiful. I grew up in south Louisiana. I'm from Baton Rouge, right? From a capital city. I know what it's like to be a capital city. And look, I can imagine Sacramento looking at LA and going, we're the capital city. Because that's how we do in Baton Rouge, where the seed not New Orleans. But for me, the fear that people have now, we've always been afraid. It's part of who you are. And what we want sometimes is for the people that we are in lockstep with, that we caucus with, to be like, yeah, you know, my cousin, my father in law, my uncle, all of these people we have These deep political disagreements with. And some of those disagreements are non negotiable. Like the history of black Americans that we were talking about. Non negotiable. The country can't be told without my history. And if it is told without my history, it is an intentional thing that is done to minimize and dehumanize me. We just have to say no to that. We just have to say no to ice. We just have to say no. We have to say no. And we wanna know that people are saying no when we're not around. And we wanna know that people are at the Thanksgiving table when someone is saying, oh, you know, you talked about Charlie Kirk, and while the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a terrible thing, the Charlie Kirk that I heard was impugning black women.

Gavin Newsom (43:22)

Pretty disgraceful, disgusting things he said, right?

Van Jones (43:25)

So that, to me, while we are having conversation, has to be challenged and the entire world has to know. That's a lot.

Gavin Newsom (43:33)

Yeah, I get it. Look, I mean, I. I gave you specific examples of me challenging, certainly including social studies books and. And these specific actions that others have taken and the censoring of historical fact and the rewriting of history. And you can't. You can't go a day without seeing me attacking those goddamn things and standing up for the black and brown community in this state. You can't go a day. Take a look at my feed, look at my social media, look at me in these press conferences and what I'm doing and saying. Look at the bills I'm signing in this respect. Again, with respect. My podcast is a place where I'm just trying to mine the other side and understand what's going on for one reason. I want to understand those I disagree with. Because I want to get better and I want to be smarter and I want to win. These guys won. They kicked our ass. And we're dealing with the tyranny of this administration every goddamn day. And so for me, it's about power. Taking back our power. It's not about punditry and bullshit. It's not about having a goddamn candlelight visual. I'm not interested in a white paper on this shit. I'm a practitioner. We got to get out there. We gotta win. I care about winning. That's what Prop 50 is about. It's about power. This son of a bitch is going to not only rewrite history, it's over the history of this country. We won't have a country in a year if this guy's successful. We're at the 250th anniversary of the Founding Fathers. That's next year. There might not be another free and fair election unless we win back this House of Representatives. It's that serious. And so I want to understand their game. I want to understand how they're operating. Because we got our ass kicked. We got our ass kicked in the last election.

Van Jones (45:23)

Why did we lose?

Gavin Newsom (45:24)

For all these reasons, that we're too timid, that we don't have a message, that we're not on the offense, that we're not standing with clarity and conviction. And sometimes this is not suggesting the two of you. Sometimes I think we're a little judgmental. Sometimes I do think we look down to people. Oh, sometimes I think we talk past.

Van Jones (45:41)

People talk to me. And I don't like that Democrats do.

Gavin Newsom (45:46)

Everybody.

Rachel (45:47)

I clarify, I'm not Democrat.

Van Jones (45:49)

Definitely do like you.

Gavin Newsom (45:50)

I don't like that. And that's why I want to engage people civilly. I'm sorry.

Rachel (45:55)

I understand why you do it.

Gavin Newsom (45:57)

I understand why you're upset.

Rachel (45:58)

Yeah.

Gavin Newsom (45:58)

And I do. And by the way, the way you said it, and by the way, mad respect for the way you said it. Because you know what? You. You know what? You hit me in a. In a way that I just want to respect and I want to acknowledge. You said, when you ask that question, as a black woman, Charlie Kirk means something very different. I get it. And I appreciated that. And I just want you to know I appreciate that. And when I walk away, I'm gonna think about that a little bit more deeply. And I just wanna express that.

Van Jones (46:22)

Thank you.

Rachel (46:23)

Thank you.

Van Jones (46:24)

By the way, look, to me, it would be weird of us to criticize you and not have these conversations with you, particularly when we want the side that doesn't want to put people in vans. We want the side that doesn't want to send kinetic strikes on nondescript boats in the middle of the ocean and then just say, hey, they were bad people. We want the side that doesn't want to erase our history to be in power, but we also want it done with a sense of truth and a sense of dedication to people. And I would say this about the Democratic Party and the Democratic establishment. There is a messaging problem, but there is also a problem problem. And that problem is there are far too many people in this country who, over the last X amount of years did not feel like their lives were changing because they were in lockstep with the Democrats. They didn't feel like. We can look at any number of issues. Healthcare, housing, affordability, all of these things. I know that you're running for president. And we know that you're gonna announce it right here to this camera on the higher learning podcast that you are in for 2028. What are the answers to these? As, as, as.

Gavin Newsom (47:34)

But I, I agree with you and I disagree with you. I'm gonna say this with mad love and respect. I mean, Obamacare is meaningful, man. What Joe Biden did extend the subsidies. That's the whole debate on the shutdown, certainly is, about what Biden Democrats did to extend the subsidies. Otherwise, you're going to see the doubling of your damn health care. That's the Democratic Party. So I'm proud of that. We did do more on health care. We did do more in terms of jobs. You had the lowest black unemployment in history under the Biden administration. Lowest unemployment for women in history under the Biden administration. Lowest unemployment rate in years on the Biden administration. We're in the fastest growing economies in the world and we had inflation cooling when this son of a got in. That said, we also had an industrial policy that was worker centered, that talked about childcare, that was not centered on politics and division, that also was supporting rural parts of this country and red states. I was very proud of that. And I was proud of the policy making of Joe Biden. 400 bipartisan bills, the Chips and Science Acts, the IRA, the work he was doing on low carbon green growth and clean energy that this son of a bitch is getting rid of. That was the Democratic Party. That was. It was folks like Jeffries and others that deliver that. And Clyburn, they deliver that. I. I don't know. I didn't think it was all. I thought it was kind of meaningful. That said, I do think there's these systemic trend lines. And again, Bernie connects to that in a profoundly deep way that also has to be addressed. But I don't think we were full of shit in the last few years. And that's why I was proud to be out there for Biden and Harris. I really was. And I wasn't. And I don't say that timidly. I say that as a guy who's been critical of my party. But you know, the party did a lot of goddamn good things. I think it's just not good enough. We have more work to do.

Rachel (49:16)

So I know Van's trying to get you to answer a question, but if not you, who do you look at? Like, who do you look at in the Democratic Party? Who fights the way that you do? Who believes in the things that you do? Who's willing to Punch down. As you talk about, who in the party do you look at? Or punch up? Or punch up? Yeah. Cause you said, we're out. We're not in. The weight is above us. Who is it that you look at that could say, they could lead.

Gavin Newsom (49:43)

They could step up, look and forgive the response. It's not because you're gonna say, here's the politician. Such bullshit. When I walk out, he's gonna say.

Van Jones (49:56)

Yeah, Kevin, don't predict the future.

Rachel (49:59)

We don't do that. We don't do that. We don't talk like that.

Gavin Newsom (50:02)

What, you think I didn't like his answer?

Van Jones (50:03)

Don't predict the future.

Gavin Newsom (50:05)

No, you know, it was inadequate. I just want someone to say yes, you know, I get all that. Look, I can't stand the question in this respect. It's the biggest. It's the biggest mistake our party makes. I think it's really hurt us, this question.

Rachel (50:21)

Okay?

Gavin Newsom (50:22)

We. It's all. We're so consumed with the Gar gal and the white horses. Come save the day that we haven't been doing the hard work. Why was I in Mississippi, Alabama. Why wasn't in Arkansas? Because they kicked our ass. You know how they kicked our ass in school boards? They're kicking our ass in Secretary of State's offices. They're kicking our ass in assembly and state senate races. And we walked away because we're so goddamn consumed with the gargal and the white horse. Come save the day. There's no day to save if we don't get Speaker Jeffries in office next year. There's no data to say if we are not successful with this goddamn Prop 50 initiative. I mean, we. We're just. We're so lazy that we want the easy answer. We just need the next transcendent leader. I mean, I get it. We all fell in love with Obama. And I love that guy. And by the way, he's had our back on so many of these issues. But I think it's harder than that. Leadership can be found anywhere to your question. And we have to develop and cultivate that leadership. And the people that are the most potent and powerful, in answer specific to your question, aren't necessarily elected officials. They're not. I mean, I'm struck by the most powerful people in our lifetime, people that we admire in our lifetime, whose lives that we never experienced. People like Gandhi and Mandela and people like Vaca, Havel and Gandhi. All these folks, I mean, they never served a day in elected office. Mandela did, but that wasn't how he was. That wasn't his power, his peak power was represented in his moral authority, not his formal authority. And, you know, there's no President King day. There's no Cesar Chavez gubernatorial day. My point is leadership can be found anywhere. And I think we have to cultivate that. And that's about movements. That's about institution building. It's not the cult of personality.

Rachel (52:00)

I agree with you, and you're not wrong. I just think that. That. I wouldn't say it's lazy. I just think that people feel like if perception is reality, and it's like people feel like they need to see someone. They don't want to feel like everything is chaotic, or it's like they want to rally behind something. And so I think that's why the question keeps getting brought up.

Gavin Newsom (52:19)

No, I get it.

Rachel (52:20)

Not to get you to endorse or anything, truly.

Gavin Newsom (52:22)

I'm not attacking you for it. I asked this question, too. So I need to practice what I'm preaching because, you know, I'm like, well, who do you think? You know, we all love that conversation. I think it's that, you know, I don't know. I'm a little, you know, we're in la, you know, man in the man, ma' am mirror. You know, I'm serious. I'm just, like, actually serious about that. It's like the no Kings rally. I want show up. You're the leader we're looking for, man. We are. You are. Show up not only for yourself, for each other, so people know that we have each other's back. Show up with this initiative, Prop 50. I'm sorry to keep going back to. It's so damn important, but my point is, what's most important is what's in front of us. And I just. We're three, four years ahead. And when I said this, I was not. No bullshit free and fair election. That is a real question in this country. So it won't matter how extraordinary. AOC is. Wes Moore is Shapiro is Whitmer is. Is JB Pritzker is Bashir is Ro Khanna. You add on is whoever. Fill in the damn blank is if you don't have a free and fair election, it doesn't matter. And that's what we're up against with these guys. It is real what's happening. The destruction of this country in real time and the assault on the Latino community, in particular in the black community. And that's what I'm focused on, and that's what I'm trying to address in real time.

Van Jones (53:55)

When you look at Someone like Mamdani and the success that he's had in New York, I think that represents a really interesting quagmire for the Democratic Party. He's talking about very populist ideas that talk directly to people and affordability. If you look at some of the ideas that we're talking about, it seems like the Democrats, the establishment of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party is not in lockstep with their constituency as much as they used to be. Like, if you poll single payer healthcare, if you poll other things that are to the left of the party, it seems as if people are yearning for something that the Democrats are still unwilling to deliver to them. And the question is why? Like why? And we're gonna talk about Israel and some of the things that have happened just recently in a second.

Rachel (54:46)

But.

Van Jones (54:47)

But the question is, why does the center wing of the party, the establishment wing of the party, still seem to be unable to come to terms with populist ideas that people like. Like I've watched Mamdani have this incredible success and run a campaign that's based upon lowering the price of halal, of making New York a place where working people can live. And I've watched the party drag their feet in supporting someone who seems to be a rock star. And it makes me wonder if the Democrats really want it.

Gavin Newsom (55:21)

Yeah, I have to unpack that and, you know, move in even thousands of miles away from Mandani. Specific, I think, and I don't know this is the right answer. And I'm, I'm reflecting on, as you're asking this, trying to answer it in a novel way, because I'm, I'm trying to truly digest the point you're making. I think it's just the practical application of ideals. And so you talk about the establishment party. I assume that mostly people in office, people in positions of power.

Van Jones (55:52)

I'll define that for you. Yeah, I'm talking about. You can respond any way you want. People that seem to be funded by a very specific corporate donor base.

Gavin Newsom (56:02)

Well, that's a. Okay. I mean, in that respect, that's a. It's separate and above conversation. But let me try to unpack this. I have to manifest ideals. I'm governor. I have to also work pragmatically with my legislature. There's certain constraints on my office. I mean, we talk about Havel. I was joking. He said, you know, as his position as Czechoslovakian president. He said it de genius, Tim. He talked about the constraints of office. The constraints of office, the rule of law, courts, court's decision court of public opinion. Certain practical realities to say is not to do. And I see this. It's interesting how often I resonate with Obama when I hear him talk about you didn't do this or do that and it's like wow, you have certain realities that you're confronted with. With a campaign is one thing. Campaigns are fantastic. You know this and that we get. Then you get into office. You have to work with people to actually make them so. And that is about give and take and dare I say the worst word, compromise sometimes not compromising values or principle. I'll give you a specific example. I've long believed it's inevitable in this country to have single payer. It's just inevitable. Healthcare costs are devouring too much of our budget, too much of our retirement. It's an inevitability that I really believe that in the course of I was tasked as governor to try to figure that out. We ended up with the only state in the United States of America and I get a lot of for this including from Rogan that has universal health care regardless of pre existing conditions, ability to pay or your immigration status. Mike Johnson's attacking me almost on a doubt daily basis on this point. I delivered that but I didn't deliver a single pair. Newsom's full of. He's not a progressive. Even though we did more in this space than any state in US history and Obama did more for healthcare than any president in modern history. And so I just I think little humility and grace to the establishment from us. Not from you.

Van Jones (58:11)

Oh because we're the governed. We can't give you any humiliation. Any grace we have to keep on your ass and you keep doing your.

Gavin Newsom (58:20)

Job that I give those because. Because I've experienced that side of it.

Van Jones (58:27)

Yeah.

Gavin Newsom (58:28)

Like the actual like things I want to get done that didn't. Didn't get done this year and it's it you know I, I get you talk about housing reason I tied we started with that issue man. Don't get me started. I'm the biggest critic of our housing issue. But I, I said something you may not have picked up because why the hell would you I attached it to the budget because I was unsuccessful in the past years of getting it done through traditional legislative session. So I literally said there's no budget unless we get it done because those are the practical tools I had and how we had to leverage this. I'm just saying the grace and humility is in the practical application and it will be interesting. I just think I think we should also have grace and humility if Mandani's mayor, that he doesn't deliver on every damn one of these things. And you don't all attack him and say he's a total failure and a fraud. What a joke. Once again, the Democrats are all losers and pathetic. I mean, I just think that's so. That's why I'm a little more defensive about guys like Obama and people like Biden. I know everyone wants to dismiss Biden. I won't pride for what he actually accomplished. One of the most significant presidents in my lifetime in public policymaking, that is art and science, but it's also hard headed pragmatism. And I think it has to be incorporated in these larger conversations. But yeah, man, you don't have to express humiliating grace.

Van Jones (59:49)

Hold on. Look, look. So let me tell you. Let me tell you how I look at this. I'll tell you how to look at this. I have grace for people. I like that. I have grace for people as people. I have grace for people as people. Like, if this is the way I look at it, you go to a restaurant, a waiter is supposed to. A server is supposed to bring your food, right? If you go there and the server says, you know, I'm having a really bad day. I'm sorry that the food is late. You go, aw, man, what's wrong? How's it going? Like you're okay? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Cool. So it's been an hour. It's like, all right, man, I know you're having a bad day, but I gotta go, so can I get the food? And then the server goes, nah, it's a really bad day. You know, I'm a person too. After a while, either you have to say, yo, bring me what I'm about to pay for, or I'm going somewhere else. So I'm going to desperately try to do both with our elected officials, which is understand that you guys are people with families and all of that. Then also understand that I'm from a place where the kids drink shitty water and it's gotta change.

Gavin Newsom (60:55)

Yeah.

Van Jones (60:56)

And there was a cost for President Biden. Excuse me, For President Harris, Vice President Harris not being elected. And that price was the DOJ case ending in Alabama where the black people there have to drink shitty water. Environmental regulations and things like that ending all over the country. There was a cost. But in talking to the leadership on the left, we have to position them in a way to craft a message that reaches people. And I do not think that being Non confrontational or being subjects to them is the way to do that. I'll ask you something real quick. We've seen just recently what looks like there to be a deal in the Middle east between Israel and Hamas to there's a hostage deal and then there looks to be some framework of a deal where Israel at some point will.

Gavin Newsom (61:47)

Two phases. Phase one, which is returning the hostages and depopulating IDF in Gaza and then phase two, which is the, the more stubborn and difficult one ultimately and making sure that Palestinians are governing themselves and Hamas is out of the picture.

Van Jones (62:02)

Okay. A huge percentage of likely Democratic primary voters favor restricting US Military assistance to Israel until civilian concerns and the rights and self determination, the rights and humanity of the Palestinian people are sufficiently addressed. Are you in favor of halting military assistance to Israel?

Gavin Newsom (62:26)

I mean, the timing's a curious one. And the precipice of a phase one deal that was announced today in a ceasefire.

Van Jones (62:33)

Oh, the. You're talking. This is over, but I get it. Yeah.

Gavin Newsom (62:36)

So look, no, I'm not prepared to say that I would support a blanket exemption for military support of Israel. That said, I've been very vocal in my opposition to Bibi Netanyahu. Said he doubled down on stupid on Meet the Press like a year ago. I'm sitting here on your behalf. You're a taxpayer. As the only governor in the United States that sent a field hospital to Gaza and got it in through a third party country and is disgusted by what's happened in Gaza. As a human being, as a father, to see these children and how this war has been perpetuated by Bibi Netanyahu. I also have deep respect for the right of the State of Israel to exist and defend itself. And I thought the attack by Hamas was a terrorist attack. And we have to be clear about that as well when it gets into the nuances. And I know there was a bill in Congress on this which I was not privy to the details of the bill where there was an actual vote that on your question, that's one conversation of the specifics that I am not privy to the nuances of that and my job as governor, but a blanket restriction I would have a difficult time supporting.

Van Jones (63:54)

I guess the question is if there's an admission or an understanding that the prime minister of a country is acting in a way that's either irresponsible, callous or inhumane, why would we continue to support that country?

Gavin Newsom (64:11)

That's the executive's role to leverage that. We do that a lot. I mean that's. That's part of the game of leverage. But to eliminate support across the board is something to me is a bridge too far. Conditioning in a thoughtful way with a flexibility of criteria, flexibility with conditions that are changing on an hourly or daily basis or weekly basis as it relates to not just what's happening in Gaza, but what's happening in Lebanon, what's happening in Iran, what's happening in Syria and other parts of the Middle east is where I think you have to be careful. And I just don't think there's a clean way of answering that without the nuance that I think it deserves.

Van Jones (64:57)

AIPAC. I will not vote for a candidate that takes $1 from a PAC.

Gavin Newsom (65:02)

It's interesting. I mean, it's interesting. I haven't thought about aipac and it's interesting. You're like the first to bring up APAC in years, which is interesting. Why not relevant to the. My day to day life.

Van Jones (65:15)

Okay.

Gavin Newsom (65:16)

Which is just interesting. Listen, it's interesting you say that. JPAC perhaps more, but APAC less and less.

Van Jones (65:22)

Okay, fair enough.

Gavin Newsom (65:23)

Which is just interesting.

Van Jones (65:24)

What's interesting about it?

Gavin Newsom (65:25)

That it's just interesting as you bring up APAC that it hasn't been part of. I'm just reflecting quite openly and honestly. Hasn't been part of the day to day.

Van Jones (65:34)

Yeah. The only reason why I ask is because. With that. What I'm talking about is lobbying in and of itself. Look, let me be honest with you. The first thing that I'm. The first thing that I'm.

Gavin Newsom (65:50)

Were you not honest this whole goddamn.

Van Jones (65:51)

I've been keeping it real with you. I've been keeping it real with you, by the way. Just to let you know. Just to let you know. They fried my ass.

Gavin Newsom (65:58)

I always say that. God, I shouldn't have said that.

Van Jones (66:00)

Just to let you know. They fried my ass on here. Cause I, I was like. I was like. You know who I like? I like the way Gavin Newsome talks to these people and stuff like that. I'm trying to figure out right now who I can vote for. Who, man?

Gavin Newsom (66:11)

Why. Why are you so focused on years and years on Prop 50?

Van Jones (66:16)

I'm 50 in front of you.

Gavin Newsom (66:18)

Focus on your city council race. Focus on the school board. Focus on getting rid of me as governor. Focus on that man we've talked about.

Van Jones (66:26)

I'm.

Gavin Newsom (66:26)

Focus like you are foaming years ahead. The world is radically changing. Take a deep breath.

Van Jones (66:35)

Can I speak to that real quick? Just real quick. Just real quick. I'll be brief.

Rachel (66:37)

Everything's really good.

Van Jones (66:39)

I'll be Brief. I'll be brief. I'll be concise. You know what? Because this is the reason why all of the stuff that we've talked about focus on it locally. You've been so generous with your time. You've answered all the questions, all of that. But also, I look at Chicago and what's happening there. Yes, I look at Louisiana, I look at New York, I look at Portland, I look at all of that, and, Governor, I want it over.

Gavin Newsom (67:04)

That's right.

Van Jones (67:04)

I want it stopped. I want it over. I want this period of fear, this period of panic, this period of dehumanization. I want it over. And I'm like, how we gonna get it done?

Gavin Newsom (67:19)

Well, it ain't gonna get done in 2029.

Van Jones (67:21)

There you go.

Gavin Newsom (67:22)

You gotta get done now. I mean, I've been involved in 41 lawsuits. Hasn't even been 41 weeks of this Trump administration. Maybe it has. I mean, we're out there fighting every damn day. We got a judge's decision on the Pas accomitatus Act. Justice Breyer saying it's just blatantly illegal what the President, United States doing. We also were the first to file lawsuit against the biggest tax increase in modern American history on the middle class and working folks, and that are the tariffs that the state of California fired filed. So we're fighting in courts, we're fighting the court of public opinion in terms of me being aggressive in people's faces with clarity and conviction every damn day and putting up a mirror to the absurdity of what's going on in this country. And I'm trying to do it on my day job with policy that we think is some of the most progressive and pragmatic policies in the United States to solve some of these underlying issues. And we're trying to do it with Proposition 50, because at the end of the day, if you're not fighting fire with fire, we will see more fires all across this country, beyond just Portland and Illinois and places like Chicago specifically, that you just referenced. Man, this guy's just winding up.

Van Jones (68:25)

He's.

Gavin Newsom (68:25)

He's talking about the Insurrection Act.

Van Jones (68:28)

Yeah.

Gavin Newsom (68:28)

The hell is that? He told Greg Abbott he's entitled to five seats. I mean, this is out of control. And you have the complicity of universities selling their souls and law firms selling their souls and corporations. It's crony capitalism. Today we can get into what's wrong with corporate, corporate America. We. We kind of scratched that surface when it came to the establishment. Don't even get me started about what intel just did and how Nvidia and AMD and national and. Exactly.

Van Jones (68:56)

A little for socialism.

Gavin Newsom (68:58)

It's President Xi and then they're offended by, you know, falafels or something. And the cost with Mandani.

Van Jones (69:04)

Yeah.

Gavin Newsom (69:04)

And these are the same people that are applauding the President who's joking about taking over corporate interest of Lockheed. I mean it's. It's just. It's insane what's going on to your point. And that's why I am focused on Prop 50 and neutralizing what happened in Texas. Because it again is about power. He tried to rig. He's trying to rig the election. He has mass men out there trying to intimidate people on the streets and sidewalks. Black and brown communities. Community torn asunder because of this son of a. To what you just said. And that's why I signed the anti masking bill. That's why we continue to lead. Man. It's not rhetoric, it's not bullshit. It's not a campaign. We're doing the work every single day and we're out there and we're trying to be accountable. Forgive me for getting all ginned up on this stuff, but that's in front of us. And so I'm with you on 2028, man. I look forward to whoever the hell this person is and I can't wait. I'm gonna be a damn unicorn. And the most this, the most that's that. The most electable and they can win the 7 Big Swing St. You know. But man, we got work to do.

Rachel (70:04)

We do have work to do tomorrow.

Gavin Newsom (70:06)

On election day, November 4th. Yes. On 50.

Rachel (70:09)

You're not wrong. Thank you so much for your time. You did you, you, you gave us so much.

Gavin Newsom (70:13)

I'm glad this was just like. Just sit back, do some negative. We're going to talk sports. Talk about the Dodgers, you know, the Yankees losing. It was all that and we were gonna. We're gonna start talking about Real Housewives.

Van Jones (70:25)

Real Housewives.

Gavin Newsom (70:26)

Next time you have to come, we're gonna talk men.

Rachel (70:29)

This.

Gavin Newsom (70:30)

What the hell you start with Joe.

Van Jones (70:32)

Rogan attacking me like Jesus Christ. We have to put.

Gavin Newsom (70:36)

Unbelievable.

Van Jones (70:37)

That's how this starts, you guys. This is what you want.

Rachel (70:40)

Governor, we didn't have time to waste.

Gavin Newsom (70:43)

This is what you want.

Ryan Grimm (70:45)

Thank you. Thank you.

Van Jones (70:46)

Up to the task. We appreciate you for doing.

Gavin Newsom (70:49)

Thank you.

Rachel (70:49)

Thank you.

Van Jones (70:50)

That was Governor Newsom. I'm sure they'll be.

Rachel (70:53)

I hope you guys enjoyed it.

Van Jones (70:55)

Be a lot of reaction to it. Big news of the day. Potential ceasefire deal in Gaza. We are going to bring Back. One of the most favorite guests that we've had on Higher learning, Ryan Grimm over at Drop Site News, who's been doing all types of reporting on this to ask questions about what this means for the present and the future of the conflict. More importantly, how much relief does this bring to the horrors that the Palestinian people are going through right now? Ryan will join us on the other side of this break. This episode is brought to you by Hyundai. The all new 2026 Hyundai Palisade Hybrid doesn't just turn heads. It commands respect with its stunning exterior, luxurious interior with available captain seats and spacious third row seats and equipped with advanced technology. You and the family are making a statement before you even step out. Okay, Hyundai. Visit HyundaiUSA.com to learn more and experience the all new 2026 Palisade Hybrid today. All right, there is breaking news. I guess it's been breaking for a while now, but more official about some developments in the on ongoing genocide that's happening in Gaza that looks like there could possibly be an ease in tensions there. There could be a deal. We're trying to make sense out of it. We have someone who's reporting. We put a lot of faith and a lot of stock in. We told you guys we would bring them back when we're not going at each other. It's Ryan Grimm from Breaking Points and Drop Site News. Ryan, pretend like our audience hasn't read anything or seen anything about what President Trump or anyone else has announced. What is happening right now? Where does the war in Gaza stand as we are talking?

Ryan Grimm (72:58)

Yeah. So yesterday Trump and Israel and Hamas all announced that they had reached the framework of a ceasefire for the first phase of an agreement. The Israelis have not yet ratified it through their cabinet and have continued to attack Gaza during this time. During this time. I just got word an hour or so ago from medical sources there of a massive attack on a high rise building and there could be 40 people inside the building. So still going. And within the last several hours, apparently an IDF soldier was killed in battle like so it's not just Palestinians dying like Israelis continue to die in Gaza as well. The approval of the ceasefire has been delayed three times now by the cabinet. I don't know what the, I don't what the holdup is and I don't know what the purpose is of bombing one more high rise building before this is over because people do expect that this phase one is going to go into effect, that, that the cabinet is going to agree to it and that this will be a done deal. But as of. As we speak, you have this bizarre situation where Hamas is being asked to go find all of the captives because they, you know, they have lost touch with a lot of the brigades that were holding on to the captives. As you can imagine, it's a pretty difficult and chaotic environment to be. To be living in. They also have to produce around 30, I think 31 bodies of people who died, presumably under Israeli shelling over the last almost two years, and return those. So they have to go out and find them. But meanwhile, the bombs continue to fall, which, aside from putting Palestinians at risk, also puts the remaining captives at risk. So that's where we are at this very moment. Trump was just asked if he plans to guarantee that this would be a permanent end of the war. He said, we'll see, which is not exactly what anybody's looking for. Hamas put out a statement saying that Trump has, and the US have, guaranteed that this will be a permanent end to the war. And so we can talk about, you know, how much credit we can put into that and why they agreed to do it or any other questions you think the audience might have if they haven't been following it that closely.

Rachel (75:27)

Well, why are we calling it a ceasefire deal if it's. If they're still fighting, Right?

Ryan Grimm (75:34)

No, that's a great question. But once it is finalized, they're supposed to then cease fire. Now, they reached a ceasefire deal with Lebanon that if, you know, publicly, they announced it, they signed it, it was an agreement. They have been attacking Lebanon basically every day since then, including just recently. So Israel has a very loose interpretation of ceasefire.

Van Jones (76:02)

What are the terms of the ceasefire do?

Ryan Grimm (76:04)

Within 72 hours, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad will Release the remaining 20 captives who are alive. Israel will withdraw to some undetermined portion of Gaza. They will still. They claim that they will, at that point, effectively control 52% of Gaza. They will then open five or six crossings and humanitarian aid, medical supplies, food, will be allowed to surge into Gaza. And that is an explicit part of the bargain, which, when you read it, you're like, okay, so we're all being honest here. You were withholding humanitarian aid as a negotiating tactic, which is absolutely a war crime. Separately, Israel will release 22 children who they captured in Gaza after October 7, who they say were not involved. Involved with the October 7 attacks. Which, of course raises the question, what you doing holding 20.

Gavin Newsom (77:09)

What?

Ryan Grimm (77:09)

Yeah, what Israel was doing. And they're also releasing 1700 adults and all the women that they've. That are wrapped up in that same situation taken from Gaza who they in administrative detention, who they say are not involved in October 7th. What Israel, Israel set up checkpoints all over the northern Gaza and other places when they would clear an area area and as people would go through, they were just snatching people and putting them in what they call administrative detention, which is six months, no charges, no access to legal support, basically no rights. You're in a hole for six months and then you can extend that six months, just indefinitely. And so they now have more than 10,000 people in some form of detention. And so we what a lot of Israeli officials were saying is that the reason that they were taking these people is to then exchange them later, so hostages effectively. So they're going to return about 1,700 of those people, including these 22 children, and then also 250 what they call lifers. These are people who are serving life sentences in Israeli prisons and convicted in Israeli military tribunals of some sort of serious criminal offense, some terrorism. And so about 250 of those are going to be released. The key one that still remains to be undecided is Marwan Barghouti. He really matters. What's so fascinating about him, he's from Fatah, which is the party that is the rival of Hamas, yet he is Hamas's number one request west. Over the last. He's been in prison for like 20 years. He has embraced nonviolence, he has embraced a two state solution. And he is the figure who all Palestinians can rally around. Even Hamas and Fatah hate each other. They've gone to war with each other. But everyone in, not everyone, but like the majority of people in Hamas respect Marwan Barghouti and are urging him to be released East. The Israelis are fighting against that because it goes back to that old idea that if you have a unified Palestinian nationality, then you have somebody you have to negotiate with. And Israel prefers to be able to say, well look, you got Hamas here, you've got PA over here in the west bank. We don't have a partner for peace, so there's nothing we can do here. And so if you don't support releasing Marwan Barghouti, you don't support a permanent end to this and you don't support coexistence. You certainly don't support a two state solution. Two state solutions basically sailed. But he's willing to put his name behind it and push for it. So that remains the big wild card. Hamas is pushing very hard to have him released as part of these 250 lifers. Israel's fighting very hard not to release him.

Rachel (80:06)

I'm listening to everything that you're saying about it.

Gavin Newsom (80:08)

And.

Rachel (80:08)

And the question that I keep thinking is, does this deal in any way. Consider the Palestinian people.

Ryan Grimm (80:15)

It considers them in two ways. One is that they desperately want the bombing to stop and they need aid to get in. They are literally starving to death.

Rachel (80:29)

So that will happen.

Ryan Grimm (80:31)

That will happen. They're saying six crossings would be open and. And aid would flood in. And Palestinians in Gaza remember very, very deeply in January, when there was a ceasefire and aid poured in and the bombs did mostly stop for a period of weeks. And that breathed new life and hope into people. So a lot of Palestinians have told me that they would basically just take anything, anything at this point point to make the pain stop and in particular to bring aid in. Think about how awful it is when you're thirsty and you can't get to your water bottle. It takes a couple minutes to get to it. And it's just an awful feeling. Now imagine that all the time, along with all of the sickness that comes with it, and then the inability to kind of treat your sickness, to take care of yourself. So that alone is beneficial for them, getting the people out of prison. Not all of them, but getting some out is an advantage. And then separately, the entire phase two, that the Israelis thought they had cornered Hamas into accepting, which is this bizarre board of peace that would be. So Trump announced there would be a board of peace that would be.

Rachel (81:57)

Be.

Ryan Grimm (81:58)

That would be basically administering Gaza and would run the redevelopment.

Van Jones (82:01)

Is that the Tony Blair thing?

Ryan Grimm (82:02)

Yeah. And then Trump would be the chair and Tony Blair would basically be the honcho on it. And, you know, Tony Blair is bankrolled to the tune of more than $350 million by Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle, the guy who's buying TikTok. And Ellison has this, you know, Oracle is a software company that has these visions for how there should be. Everybody should be surveilled. Everybody should, should, you know, so you could imagine this, like, weird techno dystopia developing in Gaza occupation with this dystopian technology layered on top of it. And Hamas rejected that and said. And their argument was, we're not even weighing in on it. They said, that's not up to us. Like, we're just one faction. Like, we have the captives so we can negotiate their release. We are fighting Israel so we can negotiate a ceasefire. But they said, we're not the legitimate full voice of the Palestinian nation, so we can't. We don't have the Moral authority to turn it over to Tony Blair. You want to do that? There has to be a democratic process that involves all Palestinian factions and the Palestinian people. And Trump then accepted that said, okay, we're moving forward this phase one. So then the huge question is, what happens after the 72 hours they release all the hostages? It is, does Netanyahu then just restart the war? And certainly that is a risk, but that's the risk that Hamas has said that they're willing to take, because all they have at this point is Trump's word and there's nothing else that they could in the world. Like, he's the only man in the world who can stop Netanyahu. And so the question is, will he do it? And they don't know.

Van Jones (83:45)

Look, I'm not going to put anything past Netanyahu, Smotrius and Ben GVIR and that whole wing. But, you know, restarting that war after those hostages were released, our release would be a massive, it seems like it would be a massive geopolitical blunder. Just a complete and utter admission of genocidal intent in Gaza, for sure. Do you think there is a chance that that happens, given the pressure that Israel is under internationally?

Ryan Grimm (84:22)

I think there's a chance it happens because of the structural kind of politics and forces at work in Israel right now, and particularly with Netanyahu and his coalition and the designs that they have on that area. But I also completely agree with you that if they wanted to flush the 2% of 2 or 3% of support that they have around the globe. Globe right down the toilet, that they would, they would do that. Because then, like, wait a minute, I thought this was about the hostages.

Van Jones (84:50)

Right?

Ryan Grimm (84:51)

So what, what, like, what is it, what is it now besides just straight up genocide at this point? So I, So for that reason, I think that Hamas's gamble, from their perspective is. And from mine, it's worth taking because they could always, they could do it. But, man, you're right. Like how, like, how do you justify that in the face of the world? Like, what, what do you want? Like, what are you. Like, literally, what are you. Why are you bombing them at this point if they've just released all the hostages? Like, what do you want? You want all the land and then you're just going to kill everybody in it? Because they have the problem that it's difficult for Palestinians even to get, say, two dozen medical evacuees placed in another country because there's so much anti migrant hostility around the world. Like, I've reported very closely on the People trying to evacuate and literally, like even getting like, South Africa's been really good, but they're taking like dozens. Ireland's been great. They're taking like maybe hundreds by the end of it, but, like 2 million people. Like, there isn't a place for 2 million people. They've got all these, like, hairbrained schemes about, like, they're going to recognize Somaliland and exchange. Somaliland is going to take 2 million Palestinians or South Sudan or like Kenya's gonna get. It's like, that's not happening. And so the only other option then is just killing them. Just extermination. And like you, maybe we're. Maybe we're. Maybe our hope and faith in humanity is still to this day too high. But I just can't see that happening.

Rachel (86:25)

I guess that's why I'm so skeptical. You know, it hasn't been signed yet, and I guess I'm skeptical about it even coming to fruition because they have been using the hostages as a reason to keep doing what they're doing. The genocide, the bombing, the. All, like, keeping holding food back, all of that. And so it's like, if that's. If their ultimate goal is to completely destroy Gaza, then what would be the motive? You know, like they could keep using the hostages as the reason to do that. So I'm just very skeptical how, based on where things are right now and you've been following it and we've been here before, and then ceasefire deals, you know, it goes away. How likely do you think that this is the one? This is end deal, right?

Ryan Grimm (87:12)

I think it's pretty likely, actually. And I agree with your analysis there. And I think what it actually reveals is that for all the talk about how Israel kind of runs the American government, it's not actually true. Like, Israel is still a client state. State of the United States, like Israel has an enormous amount of influence and proportionate to its size, more than any government in the world when it comes to the United States. But when the American government wants something from a client state, the client state complies. And Trump right now wants this thing. And some of the reporting you have to take with a grain of salt. But others is credible. Like, he did say Netanyahu did complain like, hey, like, this is not. We don't like Hamas's response because they're not accepting everything. This is just typical Hamas. You should start the war. He's like, no, you're always so effing negative. Like, this is a win, take the win. And then. And as he Told to some other reporters, Netanyahu is going to be fine with it. And with me, he has to be fine with it. So Trump is like, understands that, that as the American president, he actually does call the shots. And that's what was so frustrating about the Biden administration. This like, oh, gee, it's a real shame that Israel just won't, you know, just keeps doing these things. Like, no, you're the United States, you're sending all the weapons, you provide them the geopolitical cover at the UN and everywhere else, you call the shots. And ultimately the US does call the shots. So that is the only hope.

Van Jones (88:44)

That.

Ryan Grimm (88:44)

This actually could happen. And I think it will happen. But think about what you're banking on. You'd much rather have other options before you, but that's what they got.

Van Jones (88:55)

Yeah. My last question for you is twofold. Number one, is there anything in the framework of this deal that talks about or addresses the future of Gaza, the rebuilding of Gaza Gaza, or specifically the hospitals which have been decimated in Gaza, medical attention for the people who need help. There are maimed people everywhere, injured everywhere. Is there going to be an influx of infrastructure to go back into Gaza and rebuild anything where people will have homes and places like ago? Is there any framework for that or any plans for that in this deal?

Ryan Grimm (89:39)

Anyway, one thing we know is that my colleague Jeremy Scahill reported is that Palestinian negotiators told him that one thing that's in the deal is that this Gaza Humanitarian foundation, which is this so called nonprofit that organizes these four aid distribution sites where basically every day people coming to get aid are shot and killed, built like whether it's, whether it's by the IDF or whoever else, or the mercenaries, it's not clear. But certainly the IDF is taking significant role there. That will be shut down like that, according to the negotiators. So that's something. What comes next? They say that there will be massive redevelopment. Now, Netanyahu is still demanding their version of it, which would be this board of Peace run by Tony Blair, which then is much closer to this fantastical Gaza Riviera scheme settlers that Trump, that's still what Netanyahu is pushing for. And so this will be worked out. But Hamas and the Palestinians are saying no. And the reporting is that basically that Trump has essentially agreed, okay, we're just going to do normal redevelopment. But Trump is so, but fickle and mercurial and he's got that idea in his head. So it's going to be an ongoing contest. But you're Right. The healthcare system overall has been absolutely destroyed and you can't imagine a population in more need of care healthcare at this point. So that'll be essential. And I've also interviewed people who were involved previously in Gaza with finding and removing unexploded munitions and ordinance. And that is a cumbersome long term process. Like it can take weeks for a large crew to remove one unexploded bomb and there are thousands upon thousands of them and they're stable. My understanding of the technology, they're stable until you move them. So if you hit them with a bulldozer or something, they're no longer stable. So the redevelopment could be a decades long process because there's never been an area of the world that has been hit with this level of concentrated bombing ever for this long.

Van Jones (92:09)

That's it.

Rachel (92:09)

That's it for me. Oh, is Trump gonna win a Nobel Peace Prize because of this? They're saying the timing, they're saying the timing, timing, the timing of the announcement of the deal is because he's you know, correlating it with the vote.

Ryan Grimm (92:20)

I mean it's not very well planned out. Like you gotta, he should have done it two months ago.

Van Jones (92:24)

Right.

Ryan Grimm (92:25)

You don't do it like the day of or the day before, especially when you had a peace deal in January and then you let your guy break it just shortly after that maybe so the Nobel to like. And also how, how incredible would it be to give the Nobel to a guy who is currently flooding his own country with masked gunmen pulling people into paddy wagons. Like that would agree, like that's also happening.

Rachel (92:52)

Yeah, agreed. This is his delusion.

Van Jones (92:55)

Actually you know what?

Ryan Grimm (92:56)

Maybe they do. Who knows.

Van Jones (92:57)

I do have one more question for you before you leave. I saw some reporting on drop site about a cohort of speaker type media people, including according to drop site news Van Jones that are being paid for to run some sort of information campaign for the Israeli government. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

Ryan Grimm (93:25)

Yeah, I don't actually know if they're getting paid because sometimes people do things like this just they have enough money but it's just a look, kind of a prestige thing and a junket that they do. But yeah, two fascinating pieces that then you're referencing there. So the one is, yes, this Karsh foundation where the woman who runs this mentoring project said she built this project to be to help Israel win the information war. Like that's what she said. That's why she developed this program and in that program as mentors are two New York Times reporters, including Sharon Otterman, who is the main campus reporter, like the one that was reporting on all of the campus protests for the New York Times and Van Jones and then some others as well. So literally, can you imagine if like Palestinian resistance had an information war mentorship and the New York Times and Van Jones were elected? They were over there. And then separately we reported that David Fromm, Douglas Murray, another guy, Seth Mandel, were writing speeches for the Israeli ambassador at the same time that from was actually profiling that Israeli ambassador. He emailed him one day and said, hey, I'd like to do a profile on you. Second day emails with a draft of a speech, secretly writing speeches for them. And Murray, we found, secretly hosted a FundRaiser for the IDF and raised a million pounds. That British journalist.

Van Jones (94:58)

Yeah. Dave Smith for the.

Ryan Grimm (95:01)

Have you been comment.

Van Jones (95:02)

Yeah. On Joe Rogan. Dave Smith, who I have a lot of disagreements with, but absolutely sunned them on Joe Rogan. Yeah.

Ryan Grimm (95:12)

It turns out they're just moonlighting us speechwriters for the Israeli government.

Gavin Newsom (95:15)

Wow.

Van Jones (95:16)

The rabbit hole goes pretty deep. I will say this though. If this is an end, even temporarily, to the bombing, the incineration, the dismemberment and the torture of the Palestinian people, then I and I think most other people would welcome it.

Ryan Grimm (95:34)

God willing. People need a break.

Van Jones (95:37)

Exactly. Ryan Grimm, friends of the podcast Drop Site News Breaking Point. Always good to talk to you in love and understanding, Ryan.

Rachel (95:44)

Thank you.

Ryan Grimm (95:45)

It was a great crossover. I was thinking we guys gotta have you guys on Breaking Points also. I mean, I don't know if you're allowed to with the CNN stuff and all that.

Van Jones (95:53)

Oh, shut up. I'm definitely allowed to. And I would love to. I would love to.

Ryan Grimm (95:59)

Excellent.

Van Jones (95:59)

Appreciate talking to you, man.

Gavin Newsom (96:00)

Thank you.

Ryan Grimm (96:01)

Reach out.

Van Jones (96:01)

All right, brother. Peace. Something happened, man, and it's really been fucking with me. It's been fucking with me, man. It's been fucking with my inner Louisiana.

Rachel (96:12)

In a good way or a bad way?

Van Jones (96:14)

Kind of in a bad way.

Rachel (96:16)

Why?

Van Jones (96:17)

So I don't know if you guys heard, but there's going to be a versus versus back.

Rachel (96:20)

I thought this was fake.

Van Jones (96:22)

You thought it was fake?

Rachel (96:22)

At first I was like, no way.

Van Jones (96:24)

Is this fake before we even.

Rachel (96:26)

Cause Complex is reporting it and it's a part of something that they're doing.

Van Jones (96:30)

So there's gonna be a cash money versus no limit versus. Right, right. Is going to take place in Vegas at Complex Con. At Complex Con, they're gonna do a cash money versus no limit versus. If you Guys are not Louisianan or Texas.

Rachel (96:46)

We right there. We're locked in. We're with y'. All. Sorry. We are.

Van Jones (96:50)

Okay. If you guys are not from Louisiana and not Southern, then you might not understand the significance of the cash money versus there's no Limit versus this is a big deal.

Rachel (97:02)

It's why I thought it was fake.

Van Jones (97:05)

Yeah.

Rachel (97:05)

Can this be happening? And how did we get there?

Van Jones (97:08)

Baby and P on the same stage? Y', all, this is not just hip hop shit. I'm not gonna talk to city business, but this is a lot of. This is street to street project to project real shit that has existed for a long time that is being put to the side for these two giant southern hip hop entities to be on stage together. And it's crazy. It's crazy that it's happening. Then I thought something. I was gonna do the whiteboard and do no Limit versus Cash Money, plot out the verses and say that who will win? First of all, who do you think.

Rachel (97:54)

Think will win cash money?

Van Jones (97:55)

Okay, so here's the deal.

Rachel (97:57)

It depends who they bring with them.

Van Jones (97:59)

What you mean?

Rachel (98:00)

So you said Baby and P. Master P. But who within Cash Money will show up? Who within no Limit Records is showing up? I think that's going to be a part of it because, I mean, yes, the songs are the songs and they're going to go back and forth, obviously, but, like, part of the thrill behind it is not because I want to know who else is showing up. Am I getting the hot boys?

Van Jones (98:27)

Am I getting the hot boys? When I was talking about Baby and P, I was talking about, you know, the hottest thing.

Rachel (98:31)

Who leads it? Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Van Jones (98:32)

The hot boys are going to be there. They've been on tour together. Um, we. I just want to let everybody know that the hot boys on stage together. We want to see Turk. We want to see Turk at this. The hot boys are four people.

Rachel (98:44)

Yeah, yeah. Get that together.

Van Jones (98:46)

We want to see Turk there. We want to see Turkish. We want to see Turk there. Okay, so I was thinking about this. This is very personal to me. This is super duper personal because I want to see this done fairly. So there are some rules if they gonna do a real verses.

Ryan Grimm (99:05)

Okay.

Van Jones (99:06)

That I think should be adhered. Number one. This can only compare the classic errors of the two labels. 1995 to 2001. No Carter Wayne, no Drake, no Nikki.

Rachel (99:24)

I don't think that that's fair. Then no Limit's gonna win.

Van Jones (99:30)

Not necessarily. Not even actually, because you're only getting.

Rachel (99:34)

Hot boys and then like juvenile Solo stuff.

Van Jones (99:36)

Oh, man.

Rachel (99:37)

Wayne's came out.

Van Jones (99:39)

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on. Let's. Let's be clear. You're getting. If you only went from 95 to 2001. Well, let's go 95, 2003, you getting a shit ton of cash money stuff. But you have to remember that no limit, that's basically their lifespan. Unless you're counting no limit that came while they were in California before. Because the new no limit stuff is not in any way going to be super duper relevant to what we're talking about. Even some of this might cross over to the new no limit stuff, but it has to be, I would say, 95 to 2003.

Rachel (100:17)

I agree that there should be a timeframe, but at least 10, 15 years.

Van Jones (100:22)

Nah, all right, Nah, nah, nah. Cause if you include any of the Carter Wayne era beginning that or Drake or Nikki, then it's not the essence of cash money versus no limit. That's not what we. When you think cash money versus no limit, that's not what you're thinking of. You're thinking of the classic eras of the two fucking record labels. It has to be that. All right? And I'm telling you something else. Cash money will probably win. They will probably win. But if this was. If this took place in New Orleans or in Louisiana, it would be different. It would not be the way it might be for a nationwide audience.

Rachel (101:11)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll agree with that. I'll agree with that.

Van Jones (101:14)

If it was done for us. Cause, ok, I put some songs on. All right?

Rachel (101:19)

Some of these aren't as nationally known like the no limit ones. Cause that's the thing. Is Mia X gonna come? She's probably not.

Van Jones (101:29)

Well, she might. You gotta have Mia. You gotta get the whole band together.

Rachel (101:32)

See how we understand the significance of somebody who's just coming to Complex con. And like, you're not gonna understand that. Are we getting the 504 boys?

Van Jones (101:40)

Yeah, they gotta be there.

Rachel (101:42)

Cain and Abel. Are we kidding?

Van Jones (101:44)

This is the deal. I'm gonna name these songs and you tell me which song will win. I only did a couple of songs, right?

Rachel (101:51)

This is the verses.

Van Jones (101:52)

This is a versus. So if we did the signature, posse cut from each.

Rachel (101:57)

Okay.

Van Jones (101:59)

Cash money, that's bling bling clean. No limit. That's. Make them say you wouldn't do.

Rachel (102:08)

Back that ass up.

Van Jones (102:09)

Nah, it's not. Nah, nah, that's a different category.

Rachel (102:13)

I mean, if I'm going for like cultural significance, I'm gonna say.

Van Jones (102:20)

Make him say you Gonna make him say over here. Yeah.

Rachel (102:23)

That's why. Easily.

Van Jones (102:24)

Okay, so the signature ass shaker in the history of these two labels in that classic era, Back that Ass up versus Wobble Wobble. Which one you going with?

Rachel (102:36)

They hit differently for different reasons, but it's Back that Ass Up.

Van Jones (102:39)

Back that Ass up is the signature ass shaker in hip hop.

Rachel (102:42)

I know, but I love Wobble Wobble.

Van Jones (102:44)

Okay. The signature street anthem. The street anthem for or both. 400 degrees for cash money. You don't know that record?

Rachel (103:00)

No, of. Yes, I know 400 degrees. I'm just.

Van Jones (103:04)

That's street shit.

Rachel (103:05)

Okay, Keep going.

Van Jones (103:06)

And then for no Limit down for My niggas. Which one?

Rachel (103:14)

But would you put down for My Niggas, a street street anthem? It's just become so popular.

Van Jones (103:20)

But that's. But it's still an anthem of the streets.

Rachel (103:21)

I know, but like 400 degrees, like, you gotta know Cash money more.

Van Jones (103:27)

That's all you think you gotta. 400 degrees. That's a. Come on, man. You see me talk rap. You see that 98 Mercedes on TV?

Gavin Newsom (103:39)

I bought that.

Van Jones (103:42)

Boy. What do you call that? Niggas disrespect me. I'm a being all black.

Rachel (103:45)

It's gotta be. It's gotta be.

Van Jones (103:47)

See, this is my thing, bro. I want other records to be on. It's okay.

Rachel (103:51)

What's the sad. Did you do a sad song to sad song?

Van Jones (103:54)

I didn't do sad song to sad song. Cash Money. They wasn't sad like that.

Rachel (103:58)

They didn't have a sitting in the ghetto.

Van Jones (104:01)

Think about, But I miss my homies and all that. They didn't do that. But it's other categories I have here. Like, the single long record for Cash money is kind of get your roll on, you know, that's like a club.

Rachel (104:14)

What year is that?

Van Jones (104:15)

You can troll almost like 2000, 2000 words.

Rachel (104:17)

Okay, okay.

Van Jones (104:18)

And then for no Limit, it's. It ain't my fault. Oh, it ain't my fault. And I don't like singing that n song.

Rachel (104:27)

Mystical. Yeah, Mystical will come out.

Van Jones (104:29)

Yeah. Nah, we can't. Mystical gotta say wherever the fuck he at. But yeah. You know what I'm saying? Still fly versus how you do that there. But see, his songs hit. And this is my problem with this entire thing.

Rachel (104:42)

I'm picking these Cash money songs, by the way. Cause everything you've named has leaned me towards no limit. I'm not even gonna lie.

Van Jones (104:49)

Other Cash money songs that's on there is the. But the thing is, I could go the whole big Thomas album. I could go. It's a lot of shit. But there's a lot of records that I just wanna speak my piece for no Limit real quick. I fuck with cash money. Crazy. But it's a lot of records for no Limit. That's not gonna get played by a nationwide audience. That's crazy that people love. What about making moves with thugs? Thugs? What about that? That's C Murder. I wake up in the morning and grab my cat re my Then I grab my hat Then I call my fiend and Mac True be strapped like the men in black. What about that? What about Kick, though?

Rachel (105:27)

What about kick?

Van Jones (105:28)

$100 on the drop Top and I'm a trill about to put that four, five to the heel figure. I don't know that record, bro. They don't know. What about Murder, Murder, Kill, kill.

Rachel (105:42)

Shout out Murder, kill, kill.

Van Jones (105:44)

Murder, murder, kill.

Gavin Newsom (105:46)

I'm saying get down. I'm not.

Van Jones (105:48)

That's mystical.

Rachel (105:49)

If y' all don't. I want to be at the show.

Van Jones (105:51)

What about Chopper style? What about the shock?

Rachel (105:58)

So this is what I would request at this complex con. You need to have people in the audience. You need to have people in the audience that understand the cultural significance of both. Because you are so right. Cash Money has cross over way more than no Limit. And we're naming these songs that people have no idea what we're talking about. You need people in the audience like us.

Van Jones (106:20)

What about After Dollars? No sense. After Dollars. Y' all used to hate on Silk. Silk could flow after Dollars. No sense.

Rachel (106:26)

We represent staccato flow.

Van Jones (106:27)

It's never they down road less presidential. When I write everything, I took statistics. Cause I went from riches to riches. Not motherfucking rags to riches. Cause I always had money. Plus I always had bitches.

Rachel (106:36)

No, I don't like his flow.

Ryan Grimm (106:39)

But that's.

Rachel (106:40)

But that's a different story for a different day.

Van Jones (106:41)

It's so many records on here that we didn't name. It's so many records. The hardest record to me.

Gavin Newsom (106:48)

I like the cash.

Van Jones (106:49)

Whatever, bro. I'm just saying, man. Y' all handle with care. Please, please handle the cash money. No Limit. I would love to go. Can we go, please handle the cash money. Cause y' all don't. I see y' all don't overlook no Limit. I'm asking because the reality is these no limit street joint. We haven't talked about Cain and Abel. Gangsta5.

Rachel (107:08)

I said Cain and Abel.

Van Jones (107:09)

Yeah, we haven't talked about Fucking fiend is one in every family. We haven't talked about so much. It's classic shit. But maybe it didn't, you know, it wasn't for the MTV crowd.

Rachel (107:21)

This is for the south. And you're right about this. We gotta be there. It's not gonna get as.

Van Jones (107:28)

All right, we gotta get outta here. I just wanna. I wanna point something interesting out. Ubisoft has canceled a Civil War based Assassin's Creed project. If you guys don't know what Assassin's Creed is, it's this game where you do.

Rachel (107:43)

You play.

Van Jones (107:43)

I've played it before. Is this game where you go and you. And you assassinate people because you become a part of this ages old, ancient League of Assassins. Okay, so this was the. The story of the game. This game's protagonist was a black man, supposedly who had been enslaved, but moved west to start a new life. He moved to the West. Then he returns after he had been trained by the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is the central group in Assassin's Creed that trains you how to be an assassin. He returns down there and he fights for justice against Confederate Resistance Forces. And the Ku Klux Klan, they got rid of the gang, they got rid of the game for a couple of reasons. But one reason is because they felt like the political climate in America could not handle the game coming out. Y'. All. So are y' all telling me that y' all so fucking racist that we can't. We can't fuck over klansmen in the 1870s?

Gavin Newsom (109:03)

All right.

Rachel (109:06)

I knew nothing about this till you put this on.

Van Jones (109:09)

They don't just. I just wanted to let you know mainstream American culture doesn't want you to fuck over klansmen in the 1870s and 80s. That's how racist y' all protecting the Klansmen now? Back then, I mean, not even the 18. I mean, you have to be after that because the Klan could start like the 1880s.

Rachel (109:27)

Right?

Gavin Newsom (109:27)

Right.

Rachel (109:27)

You can't.

Van Jones (109:28)

They don't want you to fuck over klansmen in the 1800s. All right? Y', all. They protecting the Klansmen, not you, but the Klansmen. Take thin caps off. If not, stop learning burning. Oh, my God.

Rachel (109:45)

I'm J.R. i'm Rachel Lynn. Lindsay. Bye, guys.