Dan Pfeiffer (3:09)

We're gonna be together and we're gonna be drinking. We're either gonna be celebrating or drowning our sorrows, but we will be doing it together.

Jon Favreau (3:15)

Yeah, you can still have a party if it's a, you know, I mean it's still a party. I just maybe happy party somewhere. It's gonna be a drunk party.

Dan Pfeiffer (3:26)

There's karma out there and I don't wanna anchor karma.

Jon Favreau (3:28)

Okay. All right. Well, there you go.

Tom Steyer (3:30)

Okay.

Jon Favreau (3:31)

We are recording this on Thursday afternoon. And as of right now, the US And Iran are still discussing a one page memo that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, pause the war that's already supposed to be paused, but really isn't for another 30 days, during which time the two countries would try to reach a permanent deal where Iran gets billions of dollars in unfrozen assets if they pinky promise not to build a nuclear weapon and commit to an inspection regime. That sounds a lot like Obama's Iran deal that Donald Trump pulled out of. The background music for these negotiations is Iranian boats firing on US Navy ships in the US carrying out new strikes on an Iranian oil port. It's unclear it's a little fog of war going on, but as we're recording, there's sort of explosions everywhere. There's reports of explosions in Tehran as well, so who the fuck knows what's going on? Trump officials say this doesn't count as restarting the war, but they also might restart the war, just like they also might restart Project Freedom, which was Trump's half assed plan to guide traffic through the strait, which was canceled earlier in the week after an incredible one day run. Project Freedom.

Dan Pfeiffer (4:39)

Not even a full day. They didn't make it 24 hours.

Jon Favreau (4:41)

I know, I was being generous like bankers hours. Meanwhile, the CIA reportedly believes that Iran still has 70% of its ballistic missiles, 75% of its missile launchers and can withstand the U.S. naval blockade for, quote, at least three to four more months. That is, according to the Washington Post. What do you think, Dan? Is Trump still holding all the cards?

Dan Pfeiffer (5:07)

It's hard to fathom a bigger clusterfuck than this. Like, it's just such a shit show. It was such a bad idea, obviously. It's been so poorly executed since then. It's so chaotic that at the same time that I was reading the New York Times story today on the one page memo, and everyone's very specific that

Jon Favreau (5:28)

it's one page, 14 points on one page, I guess small.

Dan Pfeiffer (5:32)

We don't even know margins.

Jon Favreau (5:33)

You got to put the margins over like a. You got a 0.5 margin. Maybe you got a point.

Dan Pfeiffer (5:37)

What's the font size? Are we 14? Yeah, we don't know.

Jon Favreau (5:39)

Got to be. If we're fitting 14 points on a one pager, it's a lot.

Dan Pfeiffer (5:42)

I mean, but what are those 14 points? So it's one page I'm reading that I get a news alert on my phone that the United States has struck Iranian oil ports. Like, what is happening? And then we're firing missiles back and forth. They've attacked US Ships, apparently. We think at this point the American ships had to retreat because they were damaged. We think at this point. But do not worry, the peace negotiations are still headed down the path. They're still circling around this one page memo. And a ceasefire could begin any minute, or I guess a peace deal could begin any minute, which is what they've been saying for a month now.

Jon Favreau (6:19)

So just as a thought exercise, I'm gonna be generous again here. Let's imagine that the negotiations, sort of the latest round of firing and attacks that dies down, negotiations resume, they get a deal, and then 30 days from now, they reach a more permanent deal. And it's the best deal possible for the United States, which is the Obama

Dan Pfeiffer (6:42)

deal, which is basically an approximation of the Obama deal.

Jon Favreau (6:45)

Yeah, what that would do is basically you'd ship out all the uranium, the enriched uranium from Iran, some reports said, possibly to the United States. So you'd ship out all the uranium. Now, they didn't have any uranium when Donald Trump came into office because of the Iran nuclear deal, but they did produce a lot more enriched uranium. They did enrich a lot more uranium in the years between Trump pulling out of the Iran deal and Trump deciding to attack them. But anyway, so you get rid of all the uranium and then you have new limits on uranium enrichment and the nuclear program. And some of the hawks might Argue like maybe they're a little more stringent, but the same, same kind of inspections regime, maybe like a little bit more enhanced. But again, it is the whole, the whole deal is we're going to inspect it, there's going to be spot inspections. The UN can go in there anytime. So we're going to keep an eye on them, which again, that was the Obama deal. And in exchange we're going to unfreeze billions and billions of dollars of assets. Again, that was the Obama deal. And so that is the, that is the best, best, best case scenario. In that scenario, what did it cost us? Well, it cost us 14American lives, hundreds of now thousands of lives in Iran, in Lebanon, across the Gulf. It cost us God knows how much money.

Dan Pfeiffer (8:13)

Both in at least $25 billion.

Jon Favreau (8:15)

I was gonna say both in the direct money we spent on the war and the harm to the global economy and to the US Economy and higher energy prices. We also spent like we're talking about Iran having 70% of its ballistic missiles, 75% of its missile launchers. What kind of weapons do we have? How many weapons, how many missiles do we launch now over this war for absolutely fucking nothing? Our global standing in the world, our allies trust in us. I don't know, I could go on and on and on, but it doesn't seem like, it doesn't seem like we would have gotten much from this. Best, best, best, best case scenario.

Dan Pfeiffer (8:55)

And even under your best, best, best case scenario, which was very generous of you and your generosity is appreciated at the highest levels of the White House, I'm sure the likelihood that the Iranian people rise up against the regime for a more pro American democratic version of Iran is much less likely than it was before this because I don't know, we started blowing up their country and bombing girls schools, so that seems unlikely. And let's say we, let's say we

Jon Favreau (9:23)

did kill an 86 year old and a bunch of his top goons.

Dan Pfeiffer (9:28)

So that's the world of where I feel safer already.

Jon Favreau (9:31)

Right, because. Clear. Because clearly that has decapitated the regime and they haven't been able to do anything since then. Oh, oh, wait, yes.

Dan Pfeiffer (9:39)

But even before we get to your future approximation of the Obama Iran deal, let's just say we agree on the 14 points. We get that done and the strait opens. Even if you open the strait today, the United States government estimates it'll take six months to clear it of mines. The impact on oil prices around the world and gas prices in the United States will, will remain for six months. To a year at least. The economic damage will not be undone. The tail effect of all of this on food prices because of fertilizer, on the supply chain will continue for a long period of time. And so this is not like you solve this problem because Trump is trying to solve this problem, because the midterms are coming. The political problems that come from the damage to the economy are not going away anytime soon. And for the American people who are struggling, which is the more important issue here, relief is not coming. When the 14.1 page memo is agreed to.

Jon Favreau (10:37)

Yeah. And then what do you think's gonna happen when. If the memo is agreed to and Trump announces that he should get the peace prize again and everything. And then gas prices continue to drift up from now until November. You think people are gonna be. You think that people are upset now? Just wait till October rolls around and the war has been in the rearview mirror for a couple months. People are like, what the fuck? Why am I still paying $5 gas? $4 gas? Speaking of which, oil futures have been on a real ride, thanks to all the dueling scoops and siren emojis. But gas prices, which are more stable, we're at a Nationwide average of $4.55 a gallon, 10 cents higher than Monday. And the Trump White House is, of course, working overtime to make sure people know and understand that they feel their pain. Let's listen.

Dan Pfeiffer (11:26)

Credit card spending is through the roof.

Jon Favreau (11:28)

They're spending more on gasoline, but they're spending more on everything else, too.

Tom Steyer (11:32)

We want to encourage all Americans to

Interviewer (11:33)

take a road trip, whether you're going

Jon Favreau (11:34)

to go two hours or two days.

Tom Steyer (11:36)

I thought oil prices would go to 200, $250. It's at $100 now, but even if it went to 200, it would have been worth it. I understand.

Jon Favreau (11:46)

Just an incredible showing from all three of those gentlemen. But I do have to say Kevin. Kevin has it like, yeah, no, it's true. People are maxing out their credit cards because of high gas prices. But in fairness, everything else is fucking expensive, too. Do you think it's possible that Kevin Hassett is secretly working for the Democrats? Do we have a plant in there?

Dan Pfeiffer (12:06)

We would never hire someone that stupid.

Jon Favreau (12:09)

Is this what Ken Martin has been spending all the money on?

Dan Pfeiffer (12:14)

I think it is more likely that. I guess there's two options when it comes to Hassett. One is he's the dumbest economist alive. And the other one is that earlier this year he placed a massive bet on Kalshee on Democrats taking the House because he's doing everything possible. Like he is just. Or maybe after another, he just wants to be in as many campaign. Maybe he has a. Maybe he has a bet with this film about how many Democratic campaign ads can he be in? Because every time he goes on tv, he's trying to be in another one.

Jon Favreau (12:42)

Maybe it's like a bet with Scott Bessant, because every time Bessant opens his mouth, it's almost as bad. I think Bessant's in the lead right now.

Dan Pfeiffer (12:48)

But Bassett gives like Kevin Hassett gives off doofus vibes, while Besant gives off the vibes of someone who would use his private equity fund to buy your house and evict you.

Jon Favreau (13:00)

Yeah, yeah. Besant gives off the vibe of someone who's like, never gone to a grocery store or gone to a gas station and filled up his own tank of gas.

Dan Pfeiffer (13:07)

I mean, which is a terrible thing to say about a soybean farmer.

Interviewer (13:10)

But

Dan Pfeiffer (13:13)

there is a bigger issue here, I think, beyond just the incompetence of these individual spokespeople is they are like, this is the trap Trump has set for himself, which is you cannot admit that things are bad, because to admit things are bad is to admit that Trump failed. And you can never admit that Trump is fallible. And so since you can't admit things are bad, you can't lay out your plan to make them better. So instead, you just have to walk around every single day and stick your thumb in the eye of every swing voter and seem just radically out of touch with reality. It's just like, this is why the affordability toward all of that was doomed to fail, because they are incapable of offering a message, because they're incapable of acknowledging the reality that American people feel every single day.

Jon Favreau (13:56)

I would say that's all true, but they are doing an extra special good job of poking the American people in the eye on this. Because you think about the Biden administration and we criticize them at the time when they would go around being like, oh, people say they're hurting, but you're looking at gas prices in an expensive neighborhood. And actually look at, listen to the inflation rating. It's actually good. And all of their comments, while they weren't really effective at making people believe something different than their eyes were, were telling them they were at least geared towards trying to tell people that things were getting better.

Dan Pfeiffer (14:32)

And that is being asked to be. That's being overly generous.

Jon Favreau (14:36)

I know. I'm, again, I'm feeling very generous. Yeah.

Dan Pfeiffer (14:39)

What is going on with you today?

Jon Favreau (14:40)

But again, like, I can't imagine if, like, Ron Klain, I can't even remember who the economic, like, Jared Bernstein were out there being like, yes, it's true. It's true. People are spending a lot of money and maxing out their credit cards on gas, but also everything's expensive.

Dan Pfeiffer (14:55)

Yeah. I mean, like, in fairness to, like, the individual spokespeople would do a better job than Biden himself, who would be like, the lowest unemployment rate in history.

Jon Favreau (15:05)

Yeah. They did have that thing where they were like, everyone's turkeys are $0.05 cheaper this Thanksgiving where things are getting better. It's just you look, everyone, if you're ever in the White House, if you're ever on a Democratic campaign, you ever get to the White House and the economy's a little rocky. Don't do that. Just don't do that. If people are upset, people are gonna be upset. Just tell them you're gonna fight harder. That's it. That's all you gotta do. Still not gonna help you necessarily, but it's not gonna make it worse. This is making it worse.

Dan Pfeiffer (15:33)

Stop digging.

Jon Favreau (15:34)

Stop digging. Exactly.

Jon Lovett (15:44)

Positive America is brought to you by Boox. Mother's Day is coming up, and I've been thinking about my mom, because now that I have kids of my own, I realize how impossible I was.

Jon Favreau (15:52)

Yeah.

Jon Lovett (15:53)

You know, even when I was being cool, just challenging.

Jon Favreau (15:57)

Just challenging.

Jon Lovett (15:58)

But in a good way. But challenging.

Jon Favreau (16:00)

Tiring.

Jon Lovett (16:01)

But in a lot. It's just a lot.

Jon Favreau (16:03)

And you know what? She deserves his payback. You know, she flowers, books.

Jon Lovett (16:06)

So, yeah, Mother's Day matters.

Jon Favreau (16:07)

You gotta get it right.

Jon Lovett (16:08)

And the easiest way is books. That's short for bouquets. Obviously.

Jon Favreau (16:12)

Everyone knows that.

Jon Lovett (16:13)

If you're thinking about sending your mom

Jon Favreau (16:14)

flowers, go with the Bouchs company.

Jon Lovett (16:16)

Our listeners get 25% off. Bouchs aren't just any flowers. They're cut fresh from the best farms, so they're bigger, brighter, and last way longer. Some even grow on the side of a volcano. You think your mom isn't going to love volcano flowers? If you think that, you're an idiot. Send a vibrant, happy bouquet or step it up with a monthly subscription to to keep those smiles coming month after month. With over 55,000 5 star reviews, Boox is the way to go. It takes only a couple of minutes to pick up the bouquet. Set the delivery date, and you're done. And with 25% off, you can grab a bouquet for all the amazing moms in your life. Mother's Day is May 10th. Do not wait. Go to booqs.com, use code CROOKED for 25% off. That's B O U Q S.com, promo code CROOKED boox.com use that promo code CROOKED for 25% OFF.

Jon Favreau (17:06)

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Life's a lot Sometimes regardless of what's keeping you up at night or leaving you overwhelmed, it's easy to feel like you have to figure it all out on your own. But you don't have to face these challenges alone. Having someone to listen, to understand and to support you can make all the difference. And that's where BetterHelp comes in. BetterHelp therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the US BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences and their 12 plus years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 6 million people globally. And it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. You might not think you need therapy, but you probably do. It helps to talk to someone. There's a lot going on in your life. There's a lot going on in the world. The people in your life, maybe they want to hear you, but not constantly. They don't want to just sit there and listen to all your problems. So you should sit down with a therapist. Someone whose expertise is in solving your problems. Problems.

Jon Lovett (18:15)

Good idea.

Jon Favreau (18:16)

You don't have to traverse life's challenges alone. Find the personal support you're looking for in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off@betterhelp.com PSA that's betterhelp.com PSA so as this is happening, the two men most likely to be the Republican nominee in 2028. We're out there trying to explain the war, everything else. JD Vance was in Iowa on Tuesday, ostensibly stumping for a vulnerable Republican House member, but probably testing the waters for 28 to see if there is anyone out there who likes him. Let's listen. What is this? What is. Zach, you're have to help me out with her name here. I lost my page here. Okay. All right. Okay. There we go. Sarah Trone Garriott.

Jon Lovett (19:01)

There we go.

Jon Favreau (19:02)

I'M on the wrong page here. Crushed it, sir. Crushed it.

Dan Pfeiffer (19:05)

Yes. Doing great.

Jon Favreau (19:07)

Shane Goldmacher from the New York Times was at the event and he noted in his story that a bunch of people volunteered to him that they actually really like Rubio and not just Vance, sometimes over Vance, which is something that our friend Sarah Longwell has been noting in her focus groups as well. Rubio happened to be taking over the White House daily briefing the very same day Vance was in Iowa. I know you and Lovett talked a bit about this on Pod Save America. Only Friends.

Dan Pfeiffer (19:35)

How do you access that, John? What is that?

Jon Favreau (19:36)

Tell me about it. Well, it says right here you can subscribe@cricket.com friends if you haven't already.

Dan Pfeiffer (19:41)

It's an extra special bi weekly episode of Pod Save America. So if you love Pod Save America, subscribe.

Jon Favreau (19:47)

Rotating cast of characters. It was you and Lovett this week, and I know you guys talked about this, but we're gonna talk about it again, particularly because with different takes. Different takes. Well, there's one answer from Rubio you guys didn't talk about that has gone viral from that press conference. And it was a response to, you know, a kind of question that we all know and love of the what gives you hope? Variety. Here's, here's what Marco Rubio said.

Interviewer (20:15)

I mean, my hope for America is

Jon Favreau (20:16)

what it's always been. I think it's the hope I hope we all share. We want it to continue to be

Interviewer (20:20)

the place where anyone from anywhere can achieve anything. Where you're not limited by the circumstances of your birth, by the color of your skin, by your ethnicity. But frankly, it's a place where you are able to overcome challenges and achieve your full potential. I think we have a lot to learn and be proud of in our history. It is one of perpetual and continuous

Tom Steyer (20:36)

improvement where each generation has done its

Interviewer (20:39)

part to bring us closer to fulfilling

Tom Steyer (20:40)

the vision that the founders of this

Interviewer (20:42)

country had upon its founding.

Jon Favreau (20:43)

Not limited by the circumstances of your birth, unless you were born to someone who is not a citizen of the United States, in which case my administration is currently trying to make sure that what it says in the Constitution, that you're guaranteed to be a citizen is no more. Other than that. Other than that tiny exception, yes. As far as your dreams can take you. So that went viral. All the MAGA folks are loving it. Rubio's official Twitter account released essentially a campaign video of that answer with a Superman type theme song playing in the background. What do you think of the Rubio boomlet, Dan? What is the path from here to Marco Rubio accepting the Republican nomination in 2028 while J.D. vance is just sad somewhere.

Dan Pfeiffer (21:32)

I would like to see J.D. vance sad somewhere, but I don't wanna see Marco Rubio happy. So I'm not really sure how this plays out. I think the Rubio boomlet, as you have deemed it, has more to do with J.D. vance sucking than Marco Rubio. Shining like Rubio does benefit from comparison. He's in a cabinet.

Jon Favreau (21:53)

In the land of the blind, one eyed man is king.

Dan Pfeiffer (21:56)

Yes, he is.

Jon Favreau (21:57)

You're not supposed to say that for a whole bunch of reasons anymore, but

Dan Pfeiffer (21:59)

anyway, I wonder who you're doing this podcast with next week.

Tom Steyer (22:10)

Any who don't ask.

Jon Favreau (22:11)

If we're leaving it in everyone, we're leaving it.

Dan Pfeiffer (22:17)

He's in a cabinet. Let me try to do this in a way. He's in a cabinet with Pete Hegseth, RFK junior Lyndon McMahon, Sean Duffy. He looks serious compared to those unserious people. In the land of the unserious, the serious man is king. The mildly serious man is king.

Jon Favreau (22:33)

Sucks. That sucks.

Dan Pfeiffer (22:34)

Well, you know what? We got to make adjustments, Sean. And so I think like, he looks, he looks more serious than these people and love and I talked about his performance at the briefing. Compared to Pete Hexseth, he looks like a real person. I think there is one giant problem for Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio's greatest legislative accomplishment, perhaps his only legislative accomplishment, was to work hand in hand with Barack Obama and Harry Reid to pass a bill to provide a path to citizenship for millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants.

Jon Favreau (23:15)

You mean, you mean, you mean Marco Rubio, also fluent in Spanish, who, who spoke in Spanish at that briefing, which to me was quite impressive. But let's check in with the 40% of Republican voters, 50% of Republican voters who still absolutely love Donald Trump and want him to be more restrictionist on immigration and more xenophobic.

Dan Pfeiffer (23:38)

I worked in the White House when Marco Rubio helped Barack Obama pass that very important bill to give a path to the amnesty bill, as some called it at the time when he helped with our, with the Obama amnesty bill. I was there every single day in the office. I was appreciative of Marco Rubio's help

Jon Favreau (23:53)

today to this day, I still, I want to. I just sent him a thank you card again the other day.

Dan Pfeiffer (23:58)

I am available for speaking to. I will talk to anyone about the very important role he played. I am available if you need me at Iowa, New Hampshire in the coming years to come. Speak with and share the gratitude I have with Marco Rubio for the work he did, his sincere beliefs, his. The hard work, the way in which he really was Barack Obama's whisperer on the Hill. I'm happy to tell those stories.

Jon Favreau (24:20)

This is a man who believes that borders are just lines on a map and that they don't really capture, like, what it is to be an American, which is, as he said there, it's a place where anyone can come and become anything, which is that Marco Rubio believes that that speech could have been given by Barack Obama right there. And I think the reason is because they are, when you get down to it, kindred spirits.

Dan Pfeiffer (24:45)

Like what Rubio used to say, I'm told I wasn't there, was, we're not Republicans, we're not Democrats. We're all members of the uniparty.

Jon Favreau (24:52)

So, you know, it is like, I think that all of these. And I have heard this now, I know that Sarah has heard this in her focus groups. I've heard this from, like, people I know, people I've encountered, but they are all the same people who are like, you know, maybe Spencer Pratt should be mayor of Los Angeles. Or people who are like, let me see. They're either. They've got finance careers, they've got tech careers. They liked Elon Musk for a while. They thought that was interesting. They were kind of looking at Ron DeSantis in the last primary and thought maybe he had a really good chance way too late. And that group of people is influential in terms of their megaphone and their money, but they are not the MAGA base. They are not the MAGA base. And I think that right now I agree with you that it is more about J.D. vance's weakness than Marco Rubio's strength. Because right now, I think Marco Rubio is a bit of a blank slate for people. And they. Well, not when I'm done with them, but they are. I mean, and we do this. We've done this with Democratic candidates all the time, but you sort of projects all your hopes and dreams of what you want in a candidate on Marco Rubio. Because right now, when you see Marco Rubio, he's not fucking tripping and falling on his face every five seconds like the rest of the doofuses in the administration. You know, and he does. He does seem like a serious person.

Dan Pfeiffer (26:10)

He ran a absolutely miserable 2016 campaign.

Jon Favreau (26:14)

Oh, my God.

Dan Pfeiffer (26:15)

Remember, the voters met him.

Jon Favreau (26:16)

Chris Christie, like, murdered him on stage.

Dan Pfeiffer (26:18)

Yes, yes. And as I point out to Love the other day, he ended his campaign losing a dick joke war with Donald Trump and then cried because he was so upset that Donald Trump would have access to the world's most dangerous weapons.

Jon Favreau (26:33)

Also, do you like. How does. I mean, I could very easily see a scenario where it ends up Vance Rubio. In fact, I think that could be one of the likelier scenarios. Like, I don't. Can you see a scenario where Rubio is like, you know what? I said I wasn't gonna run against JD Vance, but changed my mind. I'm gonna do it. I find that hard to believe. Maybe there's a scenario where J.D. vance is so thoroughly embarrassed that he just sort of slinks away and decides not to run at all. Although that seems.

Dan Pfeiffer (27:02)

That seems impossible to imagine.

Jon Favreau (27:04)

Unless Trump tells him. Unless Trump tells him.

Tom Steyer (27:05)

You're not it.

Dan Pfeiffer (27:07)

Yeah. I mean, if Trump put his thumb on the skill and was like, I

Jon Favreau (27:09)

want Rubio to do, you know?

Dan Pfeiffer (27:11)

Yes. Then I can see that happening. Yeah. It's. It'll be interesting.

Jon Favreau (27:16)

But I think if you're Rubio, you're like, I'm just going to go along and take the adulation from the people who think that I would be better than the current situation we're in. And maybe he runs with J.D. vance and then thinks if J.D. vance loses, then Rubio is instantly the front runner for, what is it, 2032?

Dan Pfeiffer (27:35)

Yeah. I think he could consolidate every single one of the Nikki Haley voters, and I think that'd be great for him. I mean, Rubio's natural. Rubio's natural energy is cuck. Like, I just. It just. He's like. He is.

Jon Favreau (27:49)

Yeah, like that. Go sit in that big cuck chair.

Dan Pfeiffer (27:52)

Yeah. I mean, also, that's. You know what? When I go to Iowa to tell these stories, I'm going to bring that chair with me. I'm going to sit in that chair to tell the stories of Marco Rubio's

Jon Favreau (28:00)

work and read the immigration bill that he authored.

Tom Steyer (28:02)

Yes, yes.

Jon Favreau (28:04)

Just read it out loud.

Dan Pfeiffer (28:05)

You know, the Obama library is opening this month. I wonder if there's an annotated copy in there, but I hope there's an exhibit.

Jon Favreau (28:10)

I hope Marco Rubio features prominently in the library. This was fun. All right. Trump, meanwhile, seems like he's trying to make it as difficult as possible for either Vance or Rubio to win a presidential election, thanks to their association with him. Here he is discussing his plans to change the color of the reflecting pool on the National Mall, stage a UFC fight at the White House for his birthday, and, of course, build his Ballroom.

Tom Steyer (28:38)

I said, you know, I built all these swimming pools, and they're phenomenal. So I have some very good contractors. I think that I'd like to recommend a color. It's called American Flag Blue. I said, that's the color I want. As you know, on June 14th, we're having a big fight. A lot of people haven't seen this yet. This will be the greatest show on earth, is at night. That's all lighting and cover. I was in a position, being a builder and having built many ballrooms and many other things, I'm good at ballrooms. That's the entrance to the new ballroom that's being built, which. Which everybody. Which everybody likes, especially since last Saturday evening, they like it even more because it'll have a thing called security.

Jon Favreau (29:26)

That was. Those were all just this week. Just this week as the. As the war has erupted again and they're trying to get a ceasefire and gas is going through the roof. That was all this week in his remarks. And good news. Reuters just reported that the White House is expecting to get the $400 million jumbo jet the Qatari royal family personally gifted to Donald Trump just in time for America's birthday. Happy 4th. Here's a $400 million Qatari jumbo jet from.

Dan Pfeiffer (29:56)

Well, the jet was free. The $400 million you paid for you, the taxpayer, to upgrade the security on the jet, I. E. Remove all the listening devices the guitarist put in it.

Jon Favreau (30:07)

So, so far, Trump's whole Versailles on the Potomac vibe has been yet another weight on his approval rating. But now he's tossing the anchor at Republicans in Congress who are stunningly about to vote on whether to spend $1 billion, our dollars, taxpayer dollars, on Donald Trump's ballroom, which they are claiming is necessary for security reasons. Do you think Republicans running in competitive races are excited about signing their own political death warrants?

Dan Pfeiffer (30:45)

This is the most insane thing I have ever seen a party do an election year. They don't have to do this. Like, they chose to do this. They volunteered to do it. And at a time in which they've already voted to close rural hospitals, they've already voted to kick people off their health care. They voted to kick people off their food assistance. They've said, we don't have money for education or childcare or anything else, but we have a billion dollars for a fancy ballroom where Trump can whine and die in the Epstein class. It's like, this is like a stimulus program for political ad makers. Like, it is insane. I hope they vote today.

Jon Favreau (31:26)

I was just Thinking about that, like in this, I wonder what you think about this in this like media information environment. Like it is, right? It is like a buffet for ad makers, for Democratic ad makers that they've like never seen before. And I think in an environment like that, like you want to go with like one ad over and over again. And like all you need, like I really think, and someone can go test this, but like all you need is an ad that just has like image of him talking about the ballroom and then rural hospital closing image about him talking about the fucking arch that he's building and people talking about high gas prices, people at the pump image of him talking about the fucking reflecting pool. And then people like, you know, and then war and like, you know, flag drape coffee. Like there's just, this is, this is so simple. There is nothing else that people need to do but just like one 60 second ad that like shows the corruption embodied in Donald Trump talking about, and Republicans with him talking about all of these, you know, the arch, the whole thing and then, and then all the struggles people are going through and that's it. That's the only thing you need.

Dan Pfeiffer (32:35)

You need the vote. You need like if they actually vote.

Jon Favreau (32:39)

The vote. Yeah.

Dan Pfeiffer (32:40)

The use it is, it has to be. There is money for all these things that don't help you and there's no money for you. And worse than that, they're going to take your money and they're going to spend it on this dumb fancy shit for rich people. Like it is an absolute gift. And I think the ball, like there's so many things, right? And you're right, like in this media environment, like, how do you keep track? The ballroom has the ability to be the equivalent of the whatever was the $600 hammer, the toilet seat, all the things in the Reagan era. Because one, it's so absurd, it's so ridiculous. And it has the advantage of the fact that every time Trump opens his mouth to breathe, he talks about the ballroom. So it like, it's like the white. Like, it's all. We always talk about how Democrats don't have the media firepower to make something that is bad for Trump news all on our own. Here's the thing where Trump is doing it every single day and so he himself is raising awareness of the ballroom. So it is like we are pushing on an open door here.

Jon Favreau (33:39)

But also all of these Republicans running are in competitive races are inevitably gonna

Tom Steyer (33:46)

end up in a debate.

Jon Favreau (33:47)

And I think like every single. If you are a Democratic candidate and you do not make that Republican that you're running against in a debate, like, own the ballroom. Talk about the ballroom. Talk about all of the corruption and like, what are you doing? You know, I mean, I just think that is the easiest, easiest layup. I don't care if the question is about some local fucking issue. Bring it back to the ballroom and Donald Trump just do it.

Dan Pfeiffer (34:11)

It's wild. We went from a $200 million corporate funded ballroom, which was corruption, but at least that we weren't paying for it, to a $1 billion ballroom that we're all paying for.

Jon Favreau (34:21)

Well, it's funny because it's literally the worst of both worlds for them because half the ballroom is being funded by corporate donors that now get special access to the White House and special meetings with Donald Trump. And then the other half is paid for by us.

Dan Pfeiffer (34:35)

It's just like, yes, it is. I've never, I've never seen. It's like, it is like they want to lose. It's like Mike Johnson hates his job so much he has to get. He wants to unburden himself with responsibility of the speakership.

Jon Favreau (34:47)

It's a wild experiment. It's a wild experiment.

Jon Lovett (34:57)

Pod Save America is brought to you by Bombas. The springtime thaw is finally here. Flowers are blooming, days are longer. We're saying yes to more plans. And finally getting outside. Running, walking, just moving again. It's the perfect time to upgrade your everyday go tos with Bombas. Bomba sports socks are super comfortable and designed with sport specific tech for running, cycling, yoga, hiking, you name it. Bomba sports socks are super comfortable and designed for sports specific tech for running, cycling, yoga, hiking.

Jon Favreau (35:22)

You love it.

Jon Lovett (35:23)

I like their the no show running socks that kind of like give your feet a little hug. Same something about that little extra like squeeze. I don't know, it makes you feel better.

Jon Favreau (35:30)

It's like your feet need a hug.

Jon Lovett (35:32)

Sometimes it's a little hug for your feet. Bombas are cushioned where you need it. Sweat wicking, they don't slide around so you're not constantly adjusting your socks. And with the weather warming up, it's time to add Bomba sandals into your footwear rotation. Their Friday slides are made with a super lightweight and waterproof EVA that's soft but still supportive. They're super comfortable and perfect to just slip on and go. Whether you're running errands, lounging outdoors, or just want something comfy and casual to wear. I love my Bomba socks. Recently I bought a ton of them. I just had some old crappy socks that would no longer stay up that were driving me crazy. Chucked them all in the trash, replaced them all with bombas. Been happy ever since. I'm pretty sure I'm wearing bombas right now. Yes, in fact, I am. And for every item you purchase, an essential clothing item is donated to someone facing housing insecurity. One purchased, one donated with over 150 million donations and counting, head over to bombas.com crooked and use code crooked for 20% off your first purchase. That's B O M B A S.com crooked code crooked at checkout pod Save

Jon Favreau (36:26)

America is brought to you by Bilt. Whether you're renting or paying a mortgage, one of your biggest monthly expenses should be working harder for you. That's where BILT comes in. BILT is the membership for where you live that rewards you with points on every housing payment wherever you live. BILT started out rewarding members on their rent. Now, as of 2026, BILT members can also earn points on mortgage payments wherever they live. Every housing payment earns you points you can use toward flights with top travel partners like United and Hyatt, Lyft rides, Amazon.com purchases, and so much more. Look at this list of things you can use your build points for. Select restaurants, love that. Go out dinner, use some points, fitness classes, gift cards. Basically every member only experiences. I'd love to have some of those, you know, and even student loan balances. That's pretty good. But here's what I think is the most underrated part Built members also get access to a neighborhood concierge. It can make restaurant reservations, book fitness classes and find new local spots, all while being rewarded and more than 45,000 merchant partners. It's like having a personal assistant baked into where you live. It's simple. Being a renter and now owning a home is better. With Bilt. Join the membership for where you live at joinbuilt.com crooked that's J-O-I N B I L T.com crooked make sure to use our URL so they know we sent you so one reason Republicans may not defy Trump's insanely unpopular demands? His primary threats still work, as we found out Tuesday in Indiana. For people who don't remember, last year, Trump vowed to punish Indiana legislators who voted against gerrymandering the state's maps. It turns out he did. Trump's primary challengers ousted at least five of the seven state senators he targeted, who were helped by photos posing with Trump in the oval and about 8 to 10 million dollars of ads against their opponents. Tennessee Republicans saw this and decided they would not be Trump's next victims. On Thursday, the governor there signed into law new maps that would chop up the lone congressional Democrats Memphis area district. Republicans in South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana are also contemplating new maps before the midterms, although it's less clear if these states will succeed. Former playbook author and journalist Rachel Bade called Trump's victory in the Indiana primaries a quote, major flex and said that it showed, quote, that if you mess with the bull, you'll get the horns. Agree or disagree?

Dan Pfeiffer (38:48)

I would take a cold shower if I was her. Like, was this a win for Trump? Yes. Had these incumbent senators defeated the Trump backed primary challengers, would that have been a massive defeat for Trump that probably would have led this show? Absolutely. But we have to put this in perspective. This is the incumbent president of the White House with the full backing of his political operation in the MAGA movement that spent $9 million to defeat five state senators.

Jon Favreau (39:22)

Also like, so Trump, Trump is above water in Indiana. His approval is like, he's like plus three in Indiana, which is, that's bad. Well, you know, it is bad, but like he's still.

Dan Pfeiffer (39:33)

Well, he's also probably plus 75 in a Republican primary.

Jon Favreau (39:36)

That's what I was going to say. So then you get to a Republican primary, but then you get to a, the turnout in a Republican primary which some of these state senators that won one with 7,000 votes, 8,000 votes, that was about it. So we're talking like talk about a low turnout Republican primary in Indiana. I fucking hope so. I hope he could win like spend

Dan Pfeiffer (39:58)

like $10,000 a vote.

Tom Steyer (40:00)

Exactly.

Jon Favreau (40:01)

Yes. It's so crazy. It's like, yeah, I would have been shocked. I would have been shocked if those senators held on.

Dan Pfeiffer (40:08)

I mean the real test comes in two weeks in the Kentucky primary with Tom Massey.

Jon Favreau (40:14)

Oh yeah, that's a, that's the one that's more of a test for sure.

Dan Pfeiffer (40:17)

They, we also have also in two weeks, I think the Louisiana primary, unless that's in the next couple of weeks. We have the Louisiana primary with Bill Cassidy, who Trump is primary, but that is a three way race. And so the Trump's chosen candidate probably will make the runoff, but probably won't break the rules. So that one's hard to see. But Cassidy might be toast anyway. But Trump still has sway in the Republican Party. Of course, he's the incumbent president. He just has less sway than he used to.

Jon Favreau (40:43)

Also, you know what, I'm happy for him to have all the sway he wants.

Dan Pfeiffer (40:47)

Well, not until you get to the

Jon Favreau (40:48)

next question, but because he has a 35% approval rating. And if a bunch of Republicans want to tie themselves to Donald Trump and his approval rating as they head into the midterms, best of luck.

Dan Pfeiffer (40:59)

Yeah, except in one very notable exception, which we'll get to in one second.

Jon Favreau (41:03)

You mean where redistricting is headed right now?

Dan Pfeiffer (41:07)

Yeah, I mean, this, this, the benefit for Trump here is a lot of these members do not in the report, in the, in the states that have already voted, filing deadlines are passed. A lot of the state legislators would prefer to not take these extraordinary steps to redraw the maps in the favor of Republicans. And if they had any hesitancy to do so, the Indiana primary will send a message that they better do it or they will suffer the consequences in their 2028 primaries. Like that's, that is the, we're more likely to end with Republicans maximizing, to the extent they can, the advantages given to them by the Supreme Court decision after Indiana than we were before. Now, is that going to add up to a ton of seats? That's an open question. But like, if you, if you did not want to do this in South Carolina was one place where they did not want to do it, they may end up doing it now because of this.

Jon Favreau (41:59)

Yeah. And really you're talking about South Carolina and Alabama and, and Tennessee, which we

Dan Pfeiffer (42:06)

just talked about Tennessee already.

Jon Favreau (42:07)

Did they, because they signed up. Louisiana was always going to go whether, whatever, whatever they thought about Trump because that's, that was the state involved in the case. And Alabama still needs a court to lift an injunction. So they're waiting on that. South Carolina could go and then that's about it. Like Mississippi is already thinking they're going to wait until 2028. Georgia already said no. So, you know, you're right. But it's not like I would, I'm personally more nervous waiting for the Virginia State Supreme Court to rule on the referendum because that to me is a,

Dan Pfeiffer (42:42)

that's a, that's a, that's the four suites. Yeah. We lose that four seat swing, then Republicans will end up with a significant, not in surmountal, but a significant advantage in the, in the midterms. I still think even if we lost Virginia, I still think Democrats would be favored to take the majority, but the margin by which we would do so I think would be much narrower, thus making it harder to hold in 2028.

Jon Favreau (43:04)

So obviously we can see this and just, you know, worry about what might happen. What might not happen? Is there anything Democrats can do about all of this in the short and medium term?

Dan Pfeiffer (43:12)

Yeah, I mean, what we're watching right now is incredibly infuriating to watch in Tennessee, a state with a significant black population, just carve up Memphis, one of the city, one of the blackest cities in America, and ensure it has no Democratic representation. That it's infuriating and it's deflating. And that's ultimately the goal. Right. The people who do gerrymandering and voter suppression want you to give up. They want you to feel like your power is being taken away so that you stop using your power. That's the ultimate win here. And so we obviously cannot let that happen. And here are just like three things, and none of these are satisfying. Let me be specific. None of them are satisfying. But here are the things where we can focus our energy right now. The first is we have to redouble our efforts to take the House and hopefully the Senate in 2026. The reason for that is we need, that is the foundation for the governing coalition that we will have in 2029 with a Democratic president to actually pass things like a ban on partisan gerrymandering, to do real electoral reform to make our system more small d Democratic. The second thing, and this is critically important, is we have to pour our time, our money, our resources into state legislative races because there's going to be efforts to redraw the maps in 2028, in 2030, and most importantly in 2032 after the next census. So we have to have as much power as we possibly can to draw the maps in as many places and as many. Even in states where we can't take the majority, if we can get close to the majority, we can have an potentially an influence on how those maps are drawn. This is absolutely important. This is where the future of American democracy is going to be absent. Some sort of ban on partisan gerrymandering is going to be decided in state legislative races and in governor's mansions for the map redraws. And we're going to live in a cycle of perpetual map redraws. The last thing here is we have to put pressure on the blue states where we have the ability to fight fire with fire, Illinois, Maryland, New York, in states where we have control. But that where we have put in place because we like good government bans on gerrymandering, like in Michigan, we have to put pressure on our politicians to look for ways, like they did in California, like they did in Virginia, to undo those bans. To be able to compete here because we can't live in a world of unilateral disarmament. And we cannot accept any Democratic politician that does.

Jon Favreau (45:32)

It's a good list. I like that. And I do think that the good news is some of these Democratic governors have signaled, I know that Kathy Hochul has in New York, that as we look to 2028, they're going to redraw the map. They just couldn't do it in time for 26. All right, last thing we have to talk about before you hear Lovett's conversation with Tom Steyer. As you know, FBI Director Cash Patel has been in hot water since a story in the Atlantic in mid April sourced to more than two dozen people about Patel's, quote, conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences. Patel filed a defamation lawsuit against the magazine and the writer, Sarah Fitzpatrick, seeking $250 million in damages. Mississippi now reports that Patel is also having the FBI investigate Fitzpatrick as part of an effort to uncover the leakers, which is unprecedented when the information involved isn't classified. Though the FBI flatly denies that this is happening. The Atlantic also doesn't seem to know this is going on, according to their statement. But that is the reporting. Fitzpatrick and the Atlantic responded by publishing another banger. Apparently Cash has been. Apparently Cash has been gifting people customized bottles of Woodford Reserve engraved with the FBI shield and Cash's name spelled with the dollar sign for the S, which is the part triggers me the most.

Dan Pfeiffer (46:55)

It's perfect. It's just perfect.

Jon Favreau (46:57)

A lot of the FBI insiders sourced in the story said the bourbon freebies make them really uncomfortable. Yeah, no shit. Because they are a clear violation of FBI regulations around alcohol. A bureau spokesperson said that Cash reimburses the cost and that, quote, the bottles in question are part of a tradition in the FBI that started well over a decade ago, though they declined to elaborate on that tradition. And Fitzpatrick writes that when she ran that by a former FBI official, quote, he burst out laughing. What do you think about this? Also Ms. Now Carol Enig and Kendallane and reported right before we started that that Cash is in full panic mode about his job and he has been ordering polygraphs of more than two dozen former and current members of his security detail and other staff over all these stories about him being J. Edgar boozer.

Dan Pfeiffer (47:52)

No one has ever tried and failed harder to be cool than Kash Patel. It's like his every.

Jon Favreau (48:01)

What about J.D. vance? He hasn't really tried that hard, I guess.

Dan Pfeiffer (48:04)

No, he. He has not he's barely. He's barely tried at all. I haven't even seen him once try to be cool. He tries to be Cash Patel, once in a while, is handing out, like, Kash Patel's entire life is defined by being stuffed in a locker once. And he is handing out bottles of bourbon to people who think he's ridiculous. And he put a dollar sign in his name like he's ke$. Like, what are we doing?

Jon Favreau (48:30)

Is that what it is?

Dan Pfeiffer (48:31)

I don't know, but it's like he thinks that's.

Jon Favreau (48:34)

He's Cash. Get it? Cash.

Dan Pfeiffer (48:35)

He thinks it's cool. No, I get it. I get it. He thinks that makes it cooler.

Jon Favreau (48:42)

Can you imagine if that jack off, like, gave you a bottle of bourbon with his. And some of them are signed too, so they're engraved with his name. But if you're lucky, you get an actual signed version of it, which the Atlantic reporter was able to buy online. I think she got it on ebay. And it was sold by someone who got it at an event in Las Vegas, where he spends much of his time in the poodle room at the top of the Fontainebleau.

Dan Pfeiffer (49:14)

The poodle room is such a funny term.

Jon Favreau (49:15)

Such a funny.

Dan Pfeiffer (49:18)

Yeah. What do you do? We know what kind of bourbon's in there.

Jon Favreau (49:21)

It's Woodford Reserve. So it's just, you know, it is.

Dan Pfeiffer (49:23)

It's Woodford.

Jon Favreau (49:24)

It's Woodford. Woodford. And then they had to contact Woodford and they're like, look, we don't, you know, a lot of people engrave our stuff and it happens after we already sort of send the bottle out.

Dan Pfeiffer (49:35)

That's great.

Jon Favreau (49:37)

I think it was you and I when I talked about, like, I still place a bet on that he's out by the end of the year. Was it me and you?

Dan Pfeiffer (49:45)

Yeah. Yeah, I think that's right.

Jon Favreau (49:47)

Yeah, Yeah, I think we still think that's.

Dan Pfeiffer (49:49)

You said after the midterms, you can't

Jon Favreau (49:51)

be running around handing out bottles of bourbon, being so drunk, allegedly, that your security detail, who you're now polygraphing, had to, like, send in a SWAT team to get you up in the morning because you wouldn't wake up and then just. Just panic that you can't get into your email thinking it means you're fired. And now you. Now you're giving everyone polygraph tests. I mean, that is. That shit is wild. Yeah.

Dan Pfeiffer (50:16)

I mean, we put a mid level congressional staffer whose main job is podcaster in charge of the FBI.

Jon Favreau (50:25)

The FBI. And it's like, I Think people, because you see like, you know, Pam Bondi getting fired at doj, obviously Justice Department, very important. You see like Kristi Noem at dhs, you see Pete Hegseth at dod. But it's like when you're the head of the FBI, like, these are, these are like the top federal law enforcement officials in the country, in the world, really. And it's kind of a hands on job. It's not like you're the secretary and you got a bunch of people underneath and your job is to go be on TV and do the TV thing and then like the whole place is running itself like, like you're the fucking FBI director, man. This is a, it's the worst place to put in someone this unbelievably unqualified and seemingly has plenty of, plenty of issues

Dan Pfeiffer (51:16)

personally, like truly mind blowingly was confirmed by the Senate. This was not just someone that Trump picked and installed in there. The United States Senate had hearings with him. Thom Tillis introduced him, by the way, at his hearing.

Jon Favreau (51:29)

He's selling merch. He's still selling cash merch on his website, which again, I wonder how many units is he selling of cash merch every month?

Dan Pfeiffer (51:38)

Let's just do the hypothetical here. So let's hypothetically say that you're Donald Trump and the people around him, you're like, you know what, I know it doesn't make a ton of sense, but I think Cash should be at the FBI. It's been his dream. He's always wanted to be cool. This is his best chance. I am going to do this for him. And the gratitude because Trump is a very generous person and he wants to help people, so he wants to do this. So then the idea would be like, yeah, we kind of know he's not fully qualified for this job, so we're

Jon Favreau (52:04)

going to surround him with a strong number two. And the strong number two.

Dan Pfeiffer (52:09)

Another podcaster. Another podcaster. It's like, what are we doing anyway?

Jon Favreau (52:16)

I feel safe. I feel safe. I'm going to sleep well tonight. All right, Dan. When we come back, you'll hear Lovett's conversation with California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer.

Tom Steyer (52:25)

Foreign.

Jon Lovett (52:34)

Is brought to you by stamps.com it's staggering that to this very day, many small business owners are still making post office runs or are stuck with expensive postage meter leases. It's 2026. Enough mail and ship when you want, how you want. With stamps.com. with stamps.com you can send from your computer or phone 24. 7. No long lines, no low supplies, open anytime Print postage on demand and get 90% off carrier rates like FedEx, UPS and USPS. Schedule Carrier pickups right from your door and get carrier compliant labels every time. No errors, no rejected mail, no wasted trips. It's perfect for your business. And certified mail, get document tracking and confirmed delivery and analytics to make sure you know exactly what you've sent and spent. For almost 30 years, millions of customers have relied on stamps.com to make mailing and shipping faster. And so simple. We've been using stamps.com from the very beginning. It's crazy to me that anyone go to the post office. Nothing wrong with the post office.

Jon Favreau (53:25)

People have time but who has time?

Jon Lovett (53:27)

It's a huge pain in the ass. It's easy. We ship merch. We send just like day to day bills and just do everything with it. You save time, you save money. You don't have to leave the office. What possible reason is there not to use stamps.com right now? You can try stamps.com risk free for 60 days. Go to stamps.com and use promo code PSA to get 60 days. Risk free. 60 days gives you plenty of time to see exactly how much time and money you're saving on every shipment. That's stamps.com code PSA. Stamps.com, code PSA.

Interviewer (54:00)

Joining me now, he is currently running for governor here in California to succeed Gavin Newsom. Welcome back to the pod. Tom Steyer.

Tom Steyer (54:08)

Jon, it's nice to be back with you.

Interviewer (54:09)

All right, let's start with this. California is losing population to states like Texas. What is your diagnosis as to why that's happening?

Tom Steyer (54:19)

I think it's clear to be honest, John, California is too expensive for Californians to live in anymore. And it starts with housing, but it certainly includes health care. We pay twice as much for electricity as the average in the United States of America. And of course, gasoline prices are going crazy all over the country, but including California. And in addition, I think what we're seeing from the Middle east is that we're going to have a big rise in food prices in the fall.

Interviewer (54:46)

So let's talk about the gas tax here in California because I think it gets at something that I feel is a bit missing from the debate. I watched the debate last night. Boy, rowdy. So California has one of if not the highest gas tax in the country. We spend more on roads than any other state. We also have the worst roads in the country. And I hear you talk a lot about the ways in which you want to change the tax code and raise revenue. But I'm curious how you view the role of governor in getting costs like that under control.

Tom Steyer (55:20)

Anytime you're running an organization, you have to demand accountability. And if you're running an organization, I think it's an old statement that if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. So to a very large extent, if you're going to be running the state of California and demanding that the roads be maintained well, so you're going to measure maintenance, how are the roads, and you're going to measure how much it costs to maintain them, then that's something that people are going to have to manage to. It's a question of accountability and control. And I think it's quite clear in California, in multiple places, that that's not a system that's existed. It's not a system where people have been able to do that. And that's a management task. The governor is an executive function. And so, yeah, you have an organization to run and you have an organization like every other organization in terms of how you manage that through the people and how you manage that through the numbers.

Interviewer (56:21)

So can you talk a bit about your experience in management? Because you started a hedge fund in San Francisco in 1986, you were an investor. My understanding of what your role would be as somebody who is running a hedge fund is you are investigating companies, you're looking into companies, you're giving even feedback to companies. But you're not running organizations directly, you're running your smaller organization that's finding different companies and businesses and evaluating their management as opposed to directly doing it yourself.

Tom Steyer (56:53)

Okay, let me give you a different view on that than the one you just put.

Interviewer (56:56)

I'm asking. That's my impression.

Tom Steyer (56:59)

And basically what you're saying is being an investor is doing an analytical job and a decision making job, but not a management job is your point. But the truth is, if you're running an investment business, you have a choice very early on. Are you going to be the person who runs the analysis and the decision making a la Warren Buffett, or are you going to manage the organization which involves all the normal things about management. Hiring people, measuring people, holding them to account, building teams and doing strategy? And that's what I did, honestly. So very early on it became clear to me that my job was to actually I had to make that choice. It was a very clear, distinct choice. And my job became managing people. And if you look at it, I've started a lot of organizations and all of you know, if we registered 1.2 million Californians, which We did. That's management. You know, if you start a bank that is a nonprofit community bank to try and go to the places commercial banks won't go and replace them so that you can serve underserved communities, that's management. You know, the truth of the matter is there are people like Warren Buffett. And if you've ever been to visit him in Omaha, haven't had the pleasure. Let me describe it.

Interviewer (58:14)

Okay.

Tom Steyer (58:15)

It's kind of like this room. It's him and an assistant that he's probably had for 50 years in a room. And he really is an investor.

Interviewer (58:27)

Do you think it's fair that my assessment of what you're talking about on the campaign trail, you seem to me more excited or interested or passionate about closing tax loopholes on corporations, reforming the tax code, bringing in revenue to pay for the things we need than you are on the actual kind of reasons. California. California has the highest per capita or one of the highest per capita spending of any state in the country. Texas is much lower. We're still losing people to these states. So like I feel you saying, we have. We have. We have this affordability crisis. We need to raise revenue. I don't hear as much about how important it would be to figure out why California is so expensive in the government.

Tom Steyer (59:10)

Why the government is so.

Interviewer (59:11)

Yes, why the government is so good.

Tom Steyer (59:12)

Okay, so. But let me put it to you this way. I have run organizations, and I'm somebody who will go line by line and I will be a good steward of people's tax money because I understand very fully that every dollar we save, every dollar we don't spend, is a dollar we can spend on educating a kid. It's a dollar we can spend on healthcare for people who need it. And so actually, if you look at the people I started an organization from, zero. If you think I was not minding my pennies and actually measuring where they're. I didn't have a salary. I didn't get paid. I knew that I had to be careful. And in every one of the things that I've done, I've had to be serious about making sure that the money that is used is well used. And I think that if you look at somebody who's run organizations that had to be careful about money, I'm the person who's done that. And I feel like being a good steward of the money is critical. I will also say that for everybody who says they're going to fund the growth in services from waste, fraud and abuse, we've seen that movie. It's called Doge. It failed. And by the way, Betty Yee was the controller of the state of California for eight years. She's endorsed me. Betty is a highly competent, very smart, professional person. She told me she found $7 billion of waste, fraud, abuse, which is a lot. But last night on the debate stage, I think that Steve Hilton said it was $540 billion. Look, we've seen this movie in Doge. It failed completely. Will I be a good steward? And look, to me, John, this is a question of are you going to set, hire really good people and are you then going to give them systems that enable them to oversee this and watch it and be good? Yes. Are we going to do that? Yes. Am I aware that the internal information systems of the state of California are several generations behind the time? That's me being nice. And so is that something that I will take seriously? I'm telling you, if you go around this state, you can see that people are suffering. And the idea that I'm going to. I will not be profligate with tax dollars because every dollar that we save, every dollar that is misused, every dollar of waste, fraud and abuse, I believe is the term, is just money that we can use for people. And I will not take that lightly.

Interviewer (61:52)

And so, you know, let's say you're going through the budget, you're looking for places to save. We spend more per pupil than other states. We don't get good results for it. We spend more on our roads. You're also talking about reforming parts of the tax so that clearly need reform for people that are not from California. We have a rule that was passed by referendum that makes it very hard to change that really limits property taxes. And it really. If you bought a piece of commercial real estate in the 70s, you're paying extremely low rate on it. You want to close that loophole. But that money would then go into the.

Tom Steyer (62:29)

Well, can I challenge some of your assumptions? One of the things that people think is what you just said, which is that we spend a lot per pupil and we don't get good results. We have gone from being the number one education state in the United States to somewhere in the 30s, in the

Interviewer (62:48)

30s, based on per pupil adjusted for cost of living. But that includes all the ways in which California is expensive because of how

Tom Steyer (62:55)

we're already managed, which is what I'm going after.

Interviewer (62:58)

But what my point is that we are still spending a lot per people and not getting good results. It's just you have to adjust it based on all the other ways California's fucked up.

Tom Steyer (63:04)

But if you're thinking about it from the standpoint of education for a second, the results, you're thinking about it in terms of cost. But let's talk about it in terms of how education is going in California and why we're not getting good results. The truth is, getting good results is a pretty straightforward thing and people like to make it too complicated. And I used to think some different things, but the truth is, the by far biggest determinant of student success is how good the teachers are. And getting good teachers is not magic. This is not like we need to conjure up something. The truth is you have to hire people who are really good. You have to support them and help train them, and then you need to retain them when they've gotten to a level where they're a huge asset to the state. And we aren't doing that because you can say it's a lot of money compared to other states, but it's not a lot of money if you have to live in California. Which is why I'm talking about bringing down housing costs, which is why I'm going crazy on health care costs, which is why I'm saying we're going to go after the electric monopolies and reduced electricity costs. Which is why I'm saying I'll do a windfall. Because it's like we need to drive down those costs so that we're competitive with other states. And we also need to make sure that teachers being paid enough so they can live in the district so we can hire really good people, we should spend the money to train them and then we need to retain them. And you know, it is true that if you step back and look at the 50 states, then the teachers look well paid compared to the teachers in Mississippi. That is true, but the costs in Mississippi are much, much lower and the teachers are most often living outside. The reason we're having trouble, it's very hard to hire teachers in California because they can't live on the salary.

Interviewer (64:44)

Well, we had, you know, there was a strike in San Francisco and people were mocking the teachers for going on strike because of what the salaries look like in real numbers. But of course, it's because San Francisco is so unaffordable. Let's tack, let's. I want to finish. I want to ask one more question about schools and I want to get to housing. So in January, Governor Newsom proposed reform. So we have a convoluted system in which the Board of Education and the Department of education are separate. Do you support those reforms to have more authority? Go up to the governor.

Tom Steyer (65:10)

I support reform. I'm gonna answer your question with a different perspective.

Interviewer (65:15)

I never. I don't understand why that's not an easy yes. You're spending so much money to be governor. Don't you wanna be powerful?

Tom Steyer (65:20)

Streamlining the system. One of the big issues in California in education, but much more broadly is coordination of multiple agencies doing the same thing. And therefore you're talking about in terms of hiring more people. I'm talking about it. And let's take it to the fires. We're in Los Angeles, the fires in Altadena and Pacific Palisades. There were an awful lot of agencies trying to do the right thing. There was the city, there was the county, there was the state. There was no coordination. You're asking. What I said is I want to reframe your question to do you believe in much clearer, simpler lines of authority? Do you believe in not overlapping agencies doing the same task with different rules that people have to live up to, which is expensive, but it's much more than that. It actually prevents things from getting done right.

Interviewer (66:20)

Well, that's why.

Tom Steyer (66:21)

And that's why if you ask me the question, I'm saying under those circumstances, of course I'm in favor of that. But it's like it's a bigger question than just the question you asked about education.

Interviewer (66:31)

Well, this one reform is just about let's consolidate some of these authorities. Because one of the things that happens in the wake of fires is because the account, because the responsibilities are diffused, the accountability is disputes. And this is a proposal by the governor to make accountability.

Tom Steyer (66:44)

And that's my point, is it's a bigger question than just education is all I was trying to say. Yeah.

Jon Favreau (66:49)

Yeah.

Tom Steyer (66:49)

And in every case, this is a. You know, it's critical. I was talking about response to fire because it was so poorly coordinated, clearly. But it's also true in terms of housing. Very much so. When you talk about all the different agencies for permitting, you know, it's like, okay, overlapping, contradictory, expensive, time consuming. Yeah. Big thing about housing is it takes a really long time to get it done. Here's why.

Interviewer (67:17)

Yeah.

Tom Steyer (67:18)

And so you're asking me, do I think it's better to simplify and actually coordinate so that, in fact, the people who are at the end of the decision tree get faster, clearer decisions that are not contradictory? Why, yes, I do. That's a management task.

Interviewer (67:32)

So let's talk about housing, because you've been saying something that's confusing to me, and I just wanna understand it, which is one reason mayors oppose additional housing is because.

Tom Steyer (67:40)

Is it because this is a critical point.

Interviewer (67:41)

It becomes an unfunded mandate for schools and health care in their areas. But at the same time, because of our property tax system, new homeowners, new builds are one of the ways in which you can get the property tax number back up. And we have rules in California that require local funding for schools, in part based on population. So I don't understand what's unfunded, because

Tom Steyer (68:07)

what's really happening for the cities and counties is they used to rely on what you described accurately as real estate taxes, local real estate taxes, for all that stuff. But nowadays they rely very much on the state to send them money. So when the state says, we want you to permit 20,000 houses here and build them, they are then relying on the state to send them the money. In large part, I take your point, but in large part, they're relying on the state to send them the money to fund that, and that's why they put in the big fees. You know, in some places in California, I think, including some places around here, the fee to build a house is up to 20% the cost of the house, which is amazing. But they're doing it for. And I don't. It's not like these are wicked people who are somehow trying to rip people off. They are literally terrified that they're going to put themselves in a position where they cannot take care of people, they cannot educate people.

Interviewer (69:02)

I think it's a little.

Tom Steyer (69:04)

There's yimbyism if that's not your point.

Interviewer (69:06)

Sort of magnanimous fear for the future. They're listening to the constituents who are trying to fight housing in their communities.

Tom Steyer (69:12)

There's a yimby part of this, for sure, but there is also very much a money part of this. There really is. And I think that the money part I am obviously sympathetic to because they do have to provide those services. The yimby part, I understand one size doesn't fit all, but the truth is we need to build housing. There's got to be.

Interviewer (69:33)

But why is a new apartment or a new home more of a liability than an old apartment or an old home in a community when the only difference would be the property tax rate? And that property tax rate is lower for the old homes.

Tom Steyer (69:44)

I understand that. But again, they don't have a choice about the old home. Like, the old home exists and people live there. So there. That's just.

Interviewer (69:52)

Well, you're saying being Mayor of an empty city would be very, very sort of a streamlined job. But it's still like, I don't get

Tom Steyer (69:59)

it, but I think that they're looking for something different.

Jon Lovett (70:01)

Different.

Tom Steyer (70:01)

If you look around California over the last 30 or 40 years, every city has wanted to attract business. Business pays taxes. Business doesn't use services. Every city or county has tried to push back against housing because housing is expensive because of the people who live there. And so that's been the issue. And it's been the issue since 1978.

Interviewer (70:21)

So how much of it in terms of getting this, because you're in favor of SB79, which I appreciate. How much of the role of governor is about putting rules that localities can't break? Like, how much of this is collaborative? How much of this is.

Tom Steyer (70:35)

Like. It's both, of course. I mean, you know, because what you're saying is, do you order them to do it or do you work with them to do it? And of course, the answer is both. Like, you've got to have. It's gotta be a relationship. It's gotta be something where you collaborate and work together. It is a partnership. But you've gotta have some kind of stick at the end of the day. So, honestly, because there is. I'm not a fool. The YIMBY people have endorsed me. But the truth is, the reason there's a YIMBY movement is because there's a very strong NIMBY movement.

Interviewer (71:05)

Yeah. So you. So you put a lot of your own money into this race. There's also money being spent against you. And I was looking at who's funding these sort of ads, and they have, you know, their usual mysterious names. And some of it makes sense to me.

Dan Pfeiffer (71:17)

Right.

Interviewer (71:17)

Like the utilities, because you have a. A proposal to go after the utilities. But I was surprised to see that the realtors have put in money against you. And if you're someone who's saying, I'm going to build a million houses, I was surprised to see. And a builder's group is against you.

Tom Steyer (71:36)

I think the realtors, I do understand, I think they're worried that I actually am going to protect renters. I think the realtors are much more about am I, in fact, going to protect renters from, you know, spikes in cost and am I going to push against landlords, you know, when I think that they're being abusive.

Interviewer (71:57)

But presumably the Realtor's interest is transactions and having properties turnover. And there's a misaligned incentive here because of our silly property tax rules. When we put in rules that make sales more expensive, we ultimately can in some ways reduce the property tax, renovate because. Because properties don't get sold.

Tom Steyer (72:16)

Right.

Interviewer (72:17)

If Realtors make money on properties changing

Tom Steyer (72:19)

hands, are they getting up?

Interviewer (72:20)

Are they getting. Are they getting something wrong and spending against, or are they just wrong about.

Tom Steyer (72:24)

Well, well, let me say this, too.

Interviewer (72:25)

I'm curious.

Tom Steyer (72:26)

Do I think that I'm bad for business? Hell, no. Do I think that I'm going to raise taxes on billionaires and big companies? Yes, and I've said it explicitly. But do I think that I'm the person in this race who understands business by far the best?

Jon Favreau (72:40)

Yes.

Tom Steyer (72:40)

And I think if you look at the things. When I've taken on these corporate special interests, I've done it on behalf of working people. I've raised billions of dollars for education and health care without charging Californians a penny. And I haven't hurt the economy one bit. My goal here, I always say it is shared prosperity. You can't share something you don't have. It's critical for us that actually we compete really well around the world, which we do. We're half the growth in the United States. That's critical for us. We have to be a very successful, dynamic economy. We have to be. The issue we have is we are that on average. The problem is most of the people in this state can't afford to live here. And we have the highest poverty rate in the United States of America. And so when I talk about shared prosperity, I'm not joking, but it starts with prosperity. And I'm going to push very hard. Look, if we bring down housing costs, okay, that is great for everybody who needs to buy a house and everybody who needs to rent, okay? It's also great for everybody who has an employee because their costs are much lower. If I talk about bringing down electricity costs, is that great for every family? Heck, yes. That's putting money in every family's pocket. Oh, by the way, every business's pocket. Did I mention that? I don't need to talk about it, but if you go into the Central Valley, you know, you have to use a lot of electricity to use water in farming. You know, you have to irrigate and you have to move the water to where it has to go. California farmers pay three times as much for electricity to move water as Texas farmers. I want to bring that down. It's a business thing as well as a human thing in everything. I'm talking about healthcare. It is eating up businesses. It's eating up every family to be Fair. The teachers who struck in San Francisco couldn't pay their health care bills. That's what they were striking about, health care. Really. And I went on the line to ask them because I was like, how come you guys are striking? You haven't struck in 60 years. And they're like, we can't pay health care. We're paying 1,000 to $2,000 a month for a family of three. We can't do it. And so when I'm talking about bringing down healthcare costs, yes, that's absolutely for every family in this state. It's also for every business in this state. I want to make sure we're competitive with everybody internationally and nationally. I want this state to lead. I also want us to be shared. I want this to be a state we're proud of. Where we say we compete our ass off, we succeed. But you know something, we don't leave people by the side of the road. We're the state that takes care of everybody in the state.

Interviewer (75:10)

So let's talk about healthcare because I'm curious about how you see us getting toward the single payer system. Because when I look at what your critique is, you talk a lot about the ways in which we have a for profit system that tries to provide the least amount of care for the greatest cost. At the same time, in California, roughly half of the insured are insured through the public system and half of the people in the private market are insured through the nonprofit part of the private market. Most of our hospitals are nonprofit. And so in a lot of ways you can talk about the profits of like an anthem or a for profit hospital system, but majority of what we're spending, we are spending outside of the for profit system. So how do you get to a single payer system?

Tom Steyer (75:56)

The great thing about a single payer system is it does take out the big profits from the health insurers. It does give you an ability to negotiate with everybody. And so that's not what people think about. But the truth is, when you look at the costs that we're spending that are so much higher than single payer systems, it's because we don't have an ability to negotiate and bring down costs across the board. So it starts with the health insurers, but it goes way past that. And the fact of the matter is, honestly, there'll be a lot of work on this to get the details right. And that is going to be, as you'll remember from 1994, there's a lot of work on this to get the Details. Right. But the truth is we don't have a choice. And that's what I keep saying to people. They keep saying it's a lot of brain damage, which it is. But you sound like you've done a lot of work to think about all these questions, including this one.

Interviewer (76:47)

Not as much as you think. No, I'm kidding.

Tom Steyer (76:49)

I'm gonna give you a B. Okay, great. No, I'm teasing. But the truth is this. If you look at how much we're spending on healthcare and what the trend is, it's not supportable. It's honest to God not supportable. And so if you're sitting here this year and saying, well we can, you know, if we cut this and we cut education and we do this and we do that, then we can make the budget work. But the truth is we're really, it is eating up every family. That's why the teacher struck. It's really eating up business. It is. And it's eating up the budget of this state. We don't have a choice. And if you look at the numbers, I can send you the numbers. It's one of those things where you sort of go like, oh God, you know, not. People say why would you want to to do this? It's a lot of brain damage. It's very difficult. You know, there'll be lots of, you know, toing and froing. All true, but we don't have a choice. Well, and we really don't have a choice. And there's for everybody who says which did people did say on the stage last night we're just going to do it better. It's like the reason I changed my mind on single payers. People have told me that for so long and it's like you keep telling me everything they said on the stage last night that we're going to do to bring down costs. I heard 10 years ago.

Interviewer (77:59)

Yeah, I guess what I like to be cynical for a moment. I believe in Medicare for all. I was infuriated by the Democrats in Congress when I worked for President Obama who stood in the way of a public option and then even a Medicare buy in for older people which would have helped the whole system. But when I look at a state like California, I say like actually we do have a choice. We have like for example in our Obamacare exchanges, it's actually a bright spot. We were able to negotiate less of a rate hike than even in a place like Texas. We're able to compete on this one lever. We have a better public system than States we're losing people to. If I'm trying to say, all right, we need California, we have. You're right. We're this massive and growing economy. We're half the growth of the country. We also have a high unemployment rate.

Tom Steyer (78:49)

Right.

Interviewer (78:50)

We need to figure out how to get people who are working for businesses, which means they have insurance already, to make an affordable life here. A single payer system isn't necessarily something they're looking for. It's not their biggest problem. The cost of health care is what they're saying.

Tom Steyer (79:07)

If it's their problem, then it's their employer's problem. And that's the truth. There's no way to get around what's going on in healthcare. And it's overwhelming. And honestly, I was spending time with the nurses yesterday and they see this up close. The people who don't get care because it's too expensive to get care until it's really a disaster. The people whose lives get blown apart by getting sick, all the stuff that they see on a daily basis, human tragedy, where in fact a simpler system at lower cost would enable us to deliver. And John, I don't think we have a choice. There are a lot of things where you can say, Tom, this is a complicated problem with a lot of players and a lot of interest with high emotion. Agreed. But if you look at it, we honestly don't have a choice if we think that health care is right. Look, obviously there's another attitude which is the Trump attitude, which is let's kick people medi cal and it's not a right. And in fact, we'll go back to the system where people don't get care or they get care at the emergency room. And obviously what I'm trying to do with California is something different. Look, we are a really rich, successful, powerful state. We need to show what the 21st century looks like. We need to show what actually we can do as a Democratic state to show I'm. We have to show what we stand for and what we have to stand for as healthcare is a right that has got to be unquestioned. And then the question is, and we have to start. You were saying, am I going to be a good steward of money? Yes. That's what this is. This is saying we're going to provide that at a price that we can afford. And that's going to involve a lot of work, but that's the way it goes. And in housing, are we going to drive down the cost of housing? Yes. Is it going to be a Lot of work. Yes. And that's the way it goes. And we're going to take on the electric monopolies and they don't like it and they're spending tens of millions of dollars against me. But you know something, they keep telling us that twice the rate of everybody else in the United States is cheap and we should just grin and bear it. That is not true at a time when electricity prices around the world are plummeting and ours are going up. So it's like if you want change, you got to take on the status quo. And it's hard, but somebody's gotta do it. And that's why I'm running for governor.

Interviewer (81:30)

So you have a little drawing on your hand which is meant to tell you to be honest at all times. Is that the idea? What does it mean?

Jon Lovett (81:40)

Sincere?

Tom Steyer (81:40)

Sincere, honest. Do your absolute best because you can't control the outcome.

Interviewer (81:45)

So you know, Katie Porter put you on the spot in the debate last night over this billionaire tax that's on the ballot. And I feel like she thought she was putting her on the spot because you're a billionaire who's spending a lot of money on this race. This tax is, I think, widely viewed as kind of bad policy. And she thought you'd be, wouldn't want to say you're against it, but wouldn't want to say you're for it. But then you just said that you're for it, which I think caught her off guard. That was my read of it. But you don't think it's a good policy to have a one time surcharge as part of the budget and yet you said you're for it. That's, I think what was confusing about the experience.

Tom Steyer (82:24)

Here's what I said. I said if it's on the ballot, I'll vote for it.

Interviewer (82:28)

Right.

Tom Steyer (82:28)

But going forward we need to do more because it's. I said two things. Because it's a one time thing and because it doesn't distribute the money throughout, you know, all the needs of Californians. It just puts it into one part of the budget, which is healthcare.

Interviewer (82:44)

Yeah, but are you worried at all that. Look, California already has a progressive income tax. We are already a high tax state. A huge amount of our state budget comes from the wealthiest earners because of our corporate tax rate, which is also one of, if not the highest in the country. I am all for reforming the tax code and a lot of this does flow from the property tax issue. But, but at the same time, if we are going to shift more of the tax burden towards the top, and we see wealthy people leave the state. The critique would be you're going to start to see that revenue need to come from somewhere else, which means you're gonna start moving it down to the bottom. I feel like you're coming out in favor of this tax because it's sort of the wages of being a billionaire in the race. And so you kind of have to say you're for it, even though long term you don't think it's a good idea. That's just my. That's my take.

Tom Steyer (83:34)

I got it. But let me make this point. If you actually look at how the richest people in this state make money, it is not the way you're describing as being taxed. You know, the income tax is based on income income. Right.

Interviewer (83:48)

But we have a cap gains rate in the state as well.

Tom Steyer (83:50)

Yeah. And in order to get capital gains, last I checked, you have to sell. Okay. So you're basically saying the way you pay tax as an individual in this state is either to get a wage, a salary, or a bonus, or to sell your stock in something at a gain. Those are the two things, right?

Interviewer (84:09)

Dividends.

Tom Steyer (84:09)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But these stocks don't pay dividends, to be clear. But actually that's not the way this works. Because if you actually are one of these people who starts, which I've said repeatedly, I'm in favor of a new brilliant idea company, and the thing blows up and you end up being worth a ton of money. You're worth a ton of money on paper, right? You own stock. So Now John owns $10 billion worth of stock in a crypto company, okay. You haven't paid any tax. Whatever you're being paid as a salary relative to your worth is de minimis. Right. If anything. But what you have is a whole bunch. And so let's say. But the truth is, you want to buy a big house or whatever the hell you want to buy. Let's not get into all that name calling. But you want it, okay? So do you sell your stock? No, you don't sell your stock. You borrow against your stock. So now you still have $10 billion worth of stock, but you have $100 million of debt against the stock, which you still own, and you've paid zero tax. So the question is, in the real world, when we're seeing this explosion of wealth, which we're seeing in companies that, that do not pay dividends, thank you very much, because none of them do, the way they pay dividends is by buying in Shares because it's single tax. Dividends are double taxation. That's single taxation. That's been true, oh God, for 50 years. No one pays dividends that because it's taxed. So instead, okay, now you have your $10 billion. You've never paid any tax. So the question is actually, is this such a bad idea? As I said, it's a one time thing for a long term problem. It doesn't go far enough and it doesn't spread the money fairly. But the truth is it's a step forward, which is what I was saying. So no, I'm not being cynical and dishonest. I'm saying, look, is it perfect? I said it wasn't perfect. But I said if it's on the ballot, I'll vote for it. And that was the truth.

Interviewer (86:15)

I hear that. Do you worry all about. We have extraordinary wealth at the top, we have higher unemployment, we have people fleeing the stake as of affordability. If we start trying to solve the problem by taxing at the top more than we already are, which we are a high tax state, we will start to see even that bright spot, which is some of the biggest tech companies of the world are based here. Some of the most profitable businesses in the world are based here. They're not hiring enough.

Tom Steyer (86:44)

Look, look, so if the people leave, that's one thing, right? You now are worth $10 billion and you don't want to pay any tax on it ever.

Interviewer (86:51)

So I'm moving to Florida.

Tom Steyer (86:52)

So you're moving to Florida. You now live in Florida. I'd like to point out to you,

Interviewer (86:55)

John, I'd rather be a millionaire in California than a billionaire in Florida. You know what I'm saying?

Tom Steyer (86:59)

Me too. But the thing that is that I do take seriously is the idea of businesses leaving. Because what I said to you is everything I'm doing is to make us more competitive from business that standpoint, every single thing. So businesses leave, that's a different thing. And last night on this stage, if you'll notice, they mentioned four businesses that left, right? Tesla, Elon, Musk, Palantir. Palantir, Salesforce. No, Oracle.

Interviewer (87:26)

Oracle.

Tom Steyer (87:27)

Charles Schwab. Charles Schwab. Anything common about those companies that you notice?

Interviewer (87:32)

You tell me. Come on, the Trump people, is that what you're saying?

Tom Steyer (87:36)

Every one of those guys is a right wing person and that's why they left. They didn't leave just because of their fears about taxes. They didn't leave because somehow this people may leave because of this tax, because this is about billionaires. But the corporations that left don't like what California stands for. Ellison, Oracle, Musk, Tesla, Charles Schwab, who actually I have a lot of respect for, but is a long term strong Republican. And Palantir, which is. Oh, my God. So in answer to your question, I want us to be the best place to have a business. I want it to be the best place to start and grow a business. And I'll do any. I will if you listen to what I'm saying. Everything I'm saying includes the prosperity part of shared prosperity. And I will be a dog about that. And I want to make the point we are going to. Everything I'm saying is we are going to support businesses because that's where we get employment and that's how this state grows. And we're part of. We're the place that imagines and builds the future.

Interviewer (88:44)

So let's talk about Hollywood for a second and thank you for your time. I think we've gone a little over, but.

Tom Steyer (88:49)

Have we? You've been very prolix, I notice. What am I prolix?

Interviewer (88:53)

Prolix. What's prolex mean?

Tom Steyer (88:54)

I'm kidding. It's talkative.

Interviewer (88:56)

Oh, I've been talkative. I feel like, I don't know, am I talking too much?

Tom Steyer (89:00)

Oh, I'm just giving you a hard time.

Interviewer (89:02)

Okay, thanks. Thanks for saying that. So on Hollywood, speaking of what has made California powerful and a beacon of our economy and our culture, we've seen jobs flee from la, we've seen them flee from California. They've gone to other states, they've gone to other countries. It is outrageous to me that American film and TV studios find it more affordable to shoot in London than they do in Los Angeles. We've just increased the tax breaks and they're trying to do some reforms. What would you do? Both sort of as a leader with the power to convene and on a policy level to ensure that California remains the home of film and TV production.

Tom Steyer (89:51)

So let me say I agree with your premise. This is a critical industry for this state and this city. Absolutely. And people are not out competing us by being better. They're out competing us by buying the business. And that can't happen. And so I've said, look, first of all, one of the things that makes me feel better is the tax credits that we give for every dollar we get back a dollar and 14 cents. So this is not like a cost. This is actually an investment that returns a pretty darn good investment to the state of California. And I think this is A critical industry for us. So I don't want us to lose because other people are giving more tax credits than we are and therefore we lose all of the. Once we've lost this ecosystem, which is the best in the world by far, we're not getting it back. It's way harder to rebuild a business than to continue a business. I mean, that's just true. And so I think it's really critical that we support it through the tax credits. Secondly, I want to make sure that there aren't regulations in this city and this state that make it hard to shoot production and particularly for small productions, I want to make sure that there aren't regulations about how you're supposed to do it and all the things you're supposed to do beforehand that are very expensive that means you can't do it here. I want to make sure that people can compete here fairly because we're going to win and we have to. You know, you were saying, you know, am I worried about business leaving? I want our businesses to win. I am competitive, John. I am on Team California. That's the team I'm on. I want to win and I want to win as a team and I want to have it so that we sit here and go, this is how you're supposed to live. Really smart people working their ass off. And let me say this, I don't think everybody who works in sort of the high flying fancy jobs knows this. The people who work at low paid jobs work their ass off. They kill themselves for very low wages. They are very skilled, they are very sincere, hard working, you know, high integrity people. Seriously. And so I'm not joking about it when I say I'm on Team California. I'm really on Team California. But everybody's on the team and certainly the entertainment industry is absolutely on the team. So I'm going to fight like hell to make sure that they can succeed and that they can stay here and help build the state that we want.

Interviewer (92:09)

Last question. Because I do want to touch on it because I think it does matter to people. You and you spent like 147 million so far of your own money on this race.

Tom Steyer (92:21)

You're watching it closer than I am.

Interviewer (92:22)

Well, I hope somebody should be watching. That's a lot of money. 120 million on ads. You know, you have that. You have put yourself near the top of the field. But when Swalwell drops out, a lot of people that support him seem to have gone to other candidates like Becerra. You sort of stay there and I Don't. It's not about the polls. There does seem to be a reluctance to see someone who is using their personal fortune to try to buy their way into name recognition and into politics. And there's something ugly about that in a democracy. And even if you view yourself as someone who would be a great governor and so therefore are willing to pay that expense, you have to see it as a system that rewards people that made vast sums of money, often in unsavory ways, including yourself, who can then turn around and try to kind of paint themselves in another way for the public. What is your response to people who feel that sense of discomfort with a billionaire running for office?

Tom Steyer (93:32)

Look, I think there are two things you're talking about. One is the one you're talking about which is just money and politics, and the other one is how people feel about billionaires, because it's both. So let's start with the easy one. People are skeptical of billionaires. Me too. So we've seen people be incredibly arrogant, selfish, self interested, obnoxious, unfeeling. Yes, I agree. I'm skeptical too. And it's also true that the way that money works in American politics is completely out of control and has been at least since Citizens United in 2011. But it's also true that right now the way this system works is through money. It's just through money from big corporations who are protecting their bottom lines. It's through billionaires who absolutely don't want to pay tax. And they are absolutely willing to support, including people from Palantir, including people from all the companies we were talking about, even though they aren't here anymore, they're willing to support people who promise they'll never tax them. So the idea that somehow we have this democratic system that exists and everybody has a is not true. And the question is, do we need someone in this system who's willing to go after the corporate special interests that actually run this state? Which is why they're coming after me. Cuz they like it and their profits are based on their control of this state. I don't know if you saw it, but I think yesterday in committee in Sacramento, the head of wuspa, the Western States Petroleum association, said he thought it was the fiduciary duty of oil companies to take advantage of the Iran war and gouge Californians as much as possible. So in answer to your question, do I think somebody has to take on these corporate special interests? Do I think somebody has to stand up for working people against billionaires? I do. And if There was someone else doing it, I would be fine. But if you actually want to change something, sometimes you have to change it. And they are spending tens of millions of dollars against me because they think I'm sincere too. And I am. And so do I think that that's something that needs to be done. I do. And if someone else were doing it, I'd be fine. Really. I'd go back and I asked a bunch of people if they'd do this before I decided to.

Interviewer (95:57)

You don't think Katie Porter's willing to take on special interests? You don't think Mahan is taking on special interests? I think there are other people in the right.

Tom Steyer (96:03)

They're not. I think Matt maybe serious.

Interviewer (96:06)

No, he or Becerra is taking on the interest. Well, he's a reformer. Maybe not taking on the special interest. I'm asking you.

Tom Steyer (96:12)

He's taking money from the oil companies. He's taking money from the people who are against single payer. No, he is.

Interviewer (96:20)

That is, they're participating in a system that's broken. They're not billionaires. Right, I agree. This is.

Tom Steyer (96:25)

But you're asking are we going to change the system? And I'm saying, well, the people who you're projecting.

Interviewer (96:30)

It's a Katie Porter. You don't think Katie Porter has hostile. If she were doing better in the polls, they'd probably be spending more against her too. Right. I mean, she's hostile to special interests, but she doesn't have your money to get ads up. Right. That's a real thing.

Tom Steyer (96:40)

So the question is, can someone win and do this? That is the actual question, John, not can someone be good hearted? There are lots of good hearted people who I would be happy if they won. The question is, can someone actually do this? And as you pointed out for a while, apparently Eric Swalwell was leading in the polls. And Eric Swalwell, I mean, it turned out that there were bigger issues, but all along there was no question that he was chuckling to every interest in this state. That was his goal and they were thrilled and he was in the lead. So when you talk about is there someone who will take on the special interest. I think to describe. Javier Becerra is a reformer.

Interviewer (97:20)

I'm sorry, did I say that? If I did, I wouldn't have just said that.

Tom Steyer (97:23)

I'm just saying someone has to do this job and, you know, actually do it, not try to do it, not, you know, give it a nice college try and then go off and, you know, play pinochle. Somebody has to actually do the job, and that's what I'm trying to do really hard.

Interviewer (97:42)

Tom Steyer, this is a great conversation. Thanks for talking to me. Really appreciate it.

Tom Steyer (97:45)

I miss Long Island.

Jon Favreau (97:49)

That's our show for today. Thanks to Tom Steyer for coming on. I'll be back in the feed on Sunday with a conversation with Senator Raphael Warren.

Dan Pfeiffer (97:56)

Bye, everyone.

Jon Favreau (97:57)

Pods in America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Farah Safari, with Reed Churlin, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt de Groat, Ben Hethcote, Jordan Kantor, Charlotte Landis, Carol Pelavie, David Towles, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Sengel. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America.