Pete Buttigieg warns democrats can't go back to pre-Trump status quo

Summary

Up First from NPR

Episode: Pete Buttigieg warns Democrats can't go back to pre-Trump status quo
Release Date: July 28, 2025

---

Introduction

In a special edition of Up First by NPR, host Steve Inskeep engages in an in-depth conversation with Pete Buttigieg, the former Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and current presidential contender. The discussion delves into the shifting landscape of the Democratic Party, the challenges posed by the Trump administration, and the broader implications for American democracy.

---

Democrats Seeking a Reset Amidst Trumpian Challenges

Pete Buttigieg opens the conversation by addressing the current state of American institutions under President Trump's leadership. He critiques the notion that maintaining the status quo is a viable option for Democrats.

“It is also wrong to imagine that we should have just kept everything going along the way it was.”
— Pete Buttigieg [00:07]

Buttigieg emphasizes the necessity for Democrats to adapt and evolve their strategies rather than clinging to previous frameworks that may no longer be effective in the post-Trump era.

---

The Epstein Scandal and Political Transparency

A significant portion of the discussion centers around the demand for transparency regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s connections to prominent figures, including Donald Trump. Buttigieg criticizes the Republican-led House of Representatives for obstructing the release of Epstein-related files.

“So I think what that tells you is... he’s blocking them.”
— Pete Buttigieg [04:37]

He argues that this obstruction reflects a broader pattern of inconsistency in President Trump's actions, undermining public trust in governmental institutions.

---

Erosion of Societal Trust and Government Transparency

Buttigieg elaborates on the implications of declining trust in government, attributing it to a long-term breakdown in societal trust and fidelity between institutions and the public.

“Unless there is a higher degree of fidelity between our institutions, our leaders and the people they serve, then issue after issue will become volcanic.”
— Pete Buttigieg [05:53]

He underscores the importance of rebuilding this trust to address the mounting frustrations among Americans.

---

Artificial Intelligence: A New Frontier of Challenges

Transitioning to future concerns, Buttigieg highlights the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential disruptive impact on the economy and job markets.

“We're talking about whole categories of jobs where... half of the entry level jobs might not be there.”
— Pete Buttigieg [09:16]

He warns that the political and substantive responses to AI advancements are insufficient, potentially leading to unprecedented economic shifts reminiscent of but far more intense than the industrial changes of the past.

---

Reimagining Democratic Strategies and Addressing Populism

Addressing internal debates within the Democratic Party, Buttigieg responds to Senator Chris Murphy’s call for a more populist approach. He agrees that the party must move beyond the status quo, tearing down ineffective institutions while preserving and improving those that work.

“We should be unsentimental about the things that don't work. We should be fearless in defending the things that do work.”
— Pete Buttigieg [10:56]

Buttigieg advocates for focusing on policies that resonate broadly with the electorate, emphasizing affordability, economic fairness, and responding to the public's immediate concerns.

---

Cultural Shifts and Universal Democratic Messaging

Buttigieg critiques the Democratic Party’s focus on identity politics, arguing that it has diluted the party's universal appeal. He believes the party should present a vision that encompasses all Americans, addressing specific forms of discrimination while promoting policies that benefit everyone.

“I think there's a perception that Democrats became so focused on identity that we no longer had a message that could actually speak to people across the board.”
— Pete Buttigieg [12:42]

He stresses the importance of communicating a more inclusive and universal message to regain lost support.

---

Critique of the Trump Administration’s Economic Policies

The conversation shifts to the Trump administration's economic decisions, particularly the cancellation of clean energy projects and the retreat from competitive markets in favor of China.

“I think it's hugely costly. I think it will destroy jobs. I think it's going to lead to... higher costs of living.”
— Pete Buttigieg [18:58]

Buttigieg highlights how such policies not only harm the economy but also set back efforts to combat climate change, putting the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage globally.

---

Assessment of Democratic Leadership and Campaign Strategies

Buttigieg discusses the success of Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral race, attributing it to a relentless focus on affordability and strategic campaign tactics. He contrasts this with more conventional approaches, advocating for the Democratic Party to adopt similar strategies that prioritize what matters most to voters.

“He was relentlessly focusing on affordability... he also was omnipresent.”
— Pete Buttigieg [20:55]

He emphasizes the need for message discipline and tactical wisdom to effectively reach and unite diverse voter bases.

---

Championing a Politics of Courage Over Fear

Addressing the pervasive climate of fear within politics, Buttigieg acknowledges its detrimental effects but counters with a call for courage. He asserts that Democrats need to connect with non-traditional supporters and expand their reach beyond narrow demographics.

“The only antidote to a politics of fear is a politics of courage.”
— Pete Buttigieg [38:42]

He advocates for aiming higher in electoral ambitions, striving for broader support rather than settling for narrow majorities.

---

Threats to American Democracy and the Rise of Autocratic Tendencies

In the concluding segments, Buttigieg categorizes President Trump not merely as a poor leader but as an existential threat to American democracy. He details actions that border on autocratic behavior, such as undermining the press, manipulating government agencies, and disregarding checks and balances.

“We have not had a president... who has tried to destroy companies, universities and broadcasters who criticize his government.”
— Pete Buttigieg [28:22]

Buttigieg warns that dismantling institutional safeguards can lead to profound and lasting damage to democratic norms and societal trust.

---

Final Reflections and Vision for the Future

Buttigieg concludes by outlining a vision for the Democratic Party that embraces both intellectual and electoral ambition. He calls for policies that already enjoy broad support while also addressing emerging challenges such as AI and institutional reform.

“We have to connect with the people we haven't been reaching and aspire not to get 51%, but 60.”
— Pete Buttigieg [30:58]

He emphasizes the importance of practical, relatable policies over theoretical debates, aiming to improve everyday American life as a foundation for broader democratic resilience.

---

Closing Remarks

The interview wraps up with a light-hearted discussion about Buttigieg’s beard, illustrating his personable nature and humanizing him beyond political discourse.

“If you were to run, would you shave it? That's a double hypothetical.”
— Pete Buttigieg [40:20]

---

Conclusion

Pete Buttigieg’s interview on Up First presents a comprehensive overview of the pressing issues facing the Democratic Party and American democracy at large. From critiquing the Trump administration’s policies and highlighting the need for transparency to advocating for a refreshed, inclusive Democratic strategy, Buttigieg offers a nuanced perspective on navigating the post-Trump political landscape. His insights underscore the urgency of rebuilding trust, adapting to technological advancements, and fostering a united, courageous approach to governance.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Pete Buttigieg [00:07]: “It is also wrong to imagine that we should have just kept everything going along the way it was.”
• Pete Buttigieg [04:37]: “So I think what that tells you is... he’s blocking them.”
• Pete Buttigieg [05:53]: “Unless there is a higher degree of fidelity between our institutions, our leaders and the people they serve, then issue after issue will become volcanic.”
• Pete Buttigieg [09:16]: “We're talking about whole categories of jobs where... half of the entry level jobs might not be there.”
• Pete Buttigieg [10:56]: “We should be unsentimental about the things that don't work. We should be fearless in defending the things that do work.”
• Pete Buttigieg [12:42]: “I think there's a perception that Democrats became so focused on identity that we no longer had a message that could actually speak to people across the board.”
• Pete Buttigieg [18:58]: “I think it's hugely costly. I think it will destroy jobs. I think it's going to lead to... higher costs of living.”
• Pete Buttigieg [20:55]: “He was relentlessly focusing on affordability... he also was omnipresent.”
• Pete Buttigieg [28:22]: “We have not had a president... who has tried to destroy companies, universities and broadcasters who criticize his government.”
• Pete Buttigieg [30:58]: “We have to connect with the people we haven't been reaching and aspire not to get 51%, but 60.”
• Pete Buttigieg [38:42]: “The only antidote to a politics of fear is a politics of courage.”

---

This summary encapsulates the essence of Pete Buttigieg's interview on NPR's Up First, highlighting his critical viewpoints, proposed strategies for the Democratic Party, and his concerns about the current state and future of American democracy.

Transcript

[Steve Inskeep]

Pete Buttigieg contends President Trump is destroying American institutions, which is wrong.

[Pete Buttigieg]

It is also wrong to imagine that we should have just kept everything going along the way it was.

[Steve Inskeep]

How would he have Democrats change their approach? I'm Steve Inskeep, and this is a special edition of up first from NPR News. We had an extended talk with the former transportation secretary and presidential candidate. His party looks for a reset and and presses President Trump on Jeffrey Epstein.

[Pete Buttigieg]

You shouldn't have to be a Republican or a Democrat to care about making sure there's transparency on something as horrific as the abuses that happened.

[Steve Inskeep]

Also, he's one of several possible presidential contenders with a beard. If you were to run, would you shave it?

[Pete Buttigieg]

That's a double hypothetical.

[Steve Inskeep]

Stay with us. We'll have a talk with the man once known as Mayor Pete. Hi, it's Catherine Marr, CEO of npr. Federal funding for public media has been eliminated. That means that the NPR network is moving forward in an uncharted future.

[Pete Buttigieg]

But our commitment to you will never waver. Please give today to support the kind.

[Steve Inskeep]

Of journalism that democracy relies upon.

[Pete Buttigieg]

Make your [e-mail] thank you.

[Steve Inskeep]

This summer on Planet Money Summer School, we're learning about political economy.

[Pete Buttigieg]

We're getting into the nitty gritty of.

[Steve Inskeep]

What government does with things like trade, taxes, immigration and healthcare.

[Pete Buttigieg]

So politics and economics, which are taught separately, they shouldn't be separated at all. I think you have to understand one to really appreciate the other.

[Steve Inskeep]

So what is the right amount of government in our lives? Tune into Planet Money Summer School from npr. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[Pete Buttigieg]

At Planet Money, we know that economic jargon can sometimes feel like speaking another language. Yeah, like arbitrage, alpha, otarchy. That's just what's in the news these days. There's also absolute advantage. Aggregate demand, aggregate supply. And this is just the A's. Oh, animal spirits. That's a pretty good one. Planet Money from npr. We help you translate the economy so you can understand the world.

[Steve Inskeep]

Wherever you get your podcasts, Democrats are debating their future. And here is one of the voices in that debate.

[Pete Buttigieg]

My name is Pete Buttigieg. They call me Mayor Pete.

[Steve Inskeep]

That's the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. When he declared his run for president a couple of campaigns ago, he stepped aside in favor of Joe Biden, became Biden's transportation secretary and was notable as one of the Democrats who took up the challenge of talking on Fox News.

[Pete Buttigieg]

Sorry, is this an interview or a debate? Can I at least finish? Well, I just can't let you throw out fallacies. It's important. Excuse me. Name one statement that I just made that you would say is actually inaccurate.

[Steve Inskeep]

Now his party is out of power. Buttigieg has moved from Indiana to Michigan for personal reasons, he has said, although it is a presidential swing state. We met face to face in New York City for an NPR video interview. The conversation started late. As he crossed the city to our studios. People kept stopping him to ask for selfies. I saw this myself as I led him into and back out of the building. This was all last week. As President Trump and his allies were trying to fend off Trump's own supporters. They are demanding that the government release more information about Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier convicted of sex offenses and connected to many of the rich and powerful, including in the past, Donald Trump. And that was where our conversation began. As we're talking, the House of Representatives has stepped aside for a number of weeks rather than address this issue. What do you think the public interest in that particular topic tells you about President Trump, about voters, about America right now?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Well, I think the public interest just got a lot deeper because one of our branches of government, the US House of Representatives, has been shut down because the Republicans would rather close that half of the Congress than allow the Epstein files to come out or somehow impede President Trump's decision to block those files. So I think what that tells you is, first of all, obviously, something very sensitive for President Trump, but also I think it speaks more broadly to this pattern of events where the president has said he would do something when it suited him to say he would do it, and then when it's his interest to do the reverse, he'll do that. Right. He said he was going to cut prices on day one. He did the reverse. He said he was going to bring peace to the Middle east on day one, bring peace to Russia and Ukraine on day one, and he said that he was going to release these files right away, and now it's more in his interest to block them. So he's blocking them.

[Steve Inskeep]

I guess we should note that Republicans say they shut down the House because they believe your party is cynically trying to exploit this issue that you don't actually care about. Is it true that you don't actually care about it?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Well, I think that every American now has a stake in this, if only because the Republicans would rather shut down the entire US House of Representatives than have to vote on allowing these files to come to light. So, yeah, I think it's safe to say this was historically more of an area of interest for the MAGA base and conservatives. But you shouldn't have to be a Republican or a Democrat to care about making sure there's transparency on something as horrific as the abuses that happened and to want to understand why an administration that promised to shed light on this decided not to. There's never been any real explanation of that.

[Steve Inskeep]

I want to look at this in a little deeper sense as to what it says about the public, about people who are interested in this. I'm imagining that you would rather be talking about infrastructure or talking about economic fairness or affordability or something like that. This seems to be the thing that has captured the attention a lot of the public, and according to surveys, a lot of people simply do not believe they've been told the truth about that. What does that public skepticism tell you more broadly about where voters are right now?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Well, I think it's a touchstone that reflects something much bigger about people feeling that their government isn't telling them the truth. And it's easy to see why frustration about that has reached a boiling point in this country. But look, we've got a broader issue of a breakdown, a collapse, really, in societal trust. This has been going on for years. I wrote a whole book about this five years ago, and I think it's even more important now. And unless there is a higher degree of fidelity between our institutions, our leaders and the people they serve, then issue after issue will become volcanic, as this has, and it's just not sustainable.

[Steve Inskeep]

On that matter of trust, somebody listening to this is going to say, well, Biden didn't release the Epstein file when he had the chance.

[Pete Buttigieg]

Yeah. He also didn't campaign promising that he would. I don't know how decisions were made in DOJ that was different from my world. But what I know is that Donald Trump made a big deal about this, promised to bring this to light right away, and now he's blocking it.

[Steve Inskeep]

There are also Republicans alleging that you and others in the administration did not say all you knew about President Biden's condition, how his age has affected him.

[Pete Buttigieg]

Over time, that's not true. In my case, at least, I told the truth, which is that he was old. You could see that he was old. And also when it came to my ability to do my job and have my boss, my president, support me in that job, I always got whatever I needed from him from the Oval Office.

[Steve Inskeep]

You never had a moment before that famous presidential debate where you worried about whether he was all there.

[Pete Buttigieg]

There were moments where I thought, he's looking tired today or where I noticed that he was aging. But there was never a moment where I thought this decision, this policy, or this process is going worse or is wrong because of the fact that he's old.

[Steve Inskeep]

Let me put a proposition on the table and we'll see if you agree with it or not. I think it's possible to say, looking at the last election, looking at the last several years, that the country has changed, that politics have changed, that Republicans figured that out and captured the moment, and Democrats have failed to do so up to now. Do you agree with that?

[Pete Buttigieg]

I would mostly agree, yeah. I think that Democrats have been slow to understand the changes in how people get their information, slow to understand some of the cultural changes that have been happening, and maybe most problematic of all, too attached to a status quo that has been failing us for a long time. Right now you've got an administration that is burning down so many of the most important institutions that we have in this country, which is wrong. It is also wrong to imagine that we should have just kept everything going along the way it was. And I think that my party needs to do a better job of addressing the fundamental problems that have led people to mistrust everything. But we are already in a dramatically different world than we were six months ago, let alone four years ago. And that's about to change that much more, in my opinion, because of the rise of artificial intelligence. And I think even now, even though it's a hot topic and people are discussing it all the time, there's a lot of hype. I think even now we are underreacting in a big way, politically and substantively to what this is about to do to us as a country.

[Steve Inskeep]

Artificial intelligence, you mean? What do you mean? What's the danger?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Well, in addition to the dangers that do get talked about a lot, the kind of apocalyptic scenarios of the machines.

[Steve Inskeep]

And machines, nobody has a job. Yeah.

[Pete Buttigieg]

The economic implications are the ones that I think could be the most disruptive, the most quickly. We're talking about whole categories of jobs where not in 30 or 40 years, but in three or four, half of the entry level jobs might not be there. And if that happens as quickly as it might happen, it'll be a bit like what I lived through as a kid in the industrial midwest when trade and automation sucked away a lot of the auto jobs in the 90s, but 10 times, maybe 100 times more disruptive because it's happening on a more widespread basis and it's happening more quickly.

[Steve Inskeep]

And you don't think that we're really reacting to that we talk about it, but we're not doing anything.

[Pete Buttigieg]

I don't think we're asking big enough questions about what we would do if that many jobs got disrupted. We're talking about changes that might be bigger and faster than anything we've seen since the 17th century, the industrial Revolution, which is before the United States existed. And, yeah, I think we're underreacting to that.

[Steve Inskeep]

You talked about the status quo and Democrats getting stuck defending the status quo. One of your fellow Democrats, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, has talked a lot about this recently, and I can summarize his argument by saying Democrats need to be more populist. We need to acknowledge that people are profoundly dissatisfied with the status quo. We also, as Democrats, he would say, need to be tearing things down, need to be talking about the very few people who seem to be benefiting in this situation. He also wants Democrats to be louder, a little more disruptive in government. What do you make of his approach?

[Pete Buttigieg]

I think it's certainly true that we can't be wedded to the old ways or the status quo. It is wrong to burn down the Department of Education, but I actually think it's also wrong to suppose that the Department of Education was just right in 2024. You could say the same thing about USAID. It is unconscionable that children were left to die by the abrupt destruction of usaid. Unconscionable. It is also clear that USAID developed into something that nobody on a clean sheet would have designed the way it was. There were a lot of problems with development aid and how it was structured. My point is it's wrong to burn these things down, but it's also wrong to suppose that if Democrats come back to power, our project should be to just tape the pieces together just the way that they were. We should be unsentimental about the things that don't work. We should be fearless in defending the things that do work. And yes, we should be naming the forces, entities, people, often corporations, who stand between a lot of Americans in a better, freer life. There's a particular small slice of that that I worked on when I was in transportation as, for example, a tough regulator of airlines trying to make sure that they treat their passengers better. But across our entire society and economy, we could be doing better on that because this president has come to power promising to do that. Now, what he's actually doing is exactly the reverse. A tax bill that makes it easier for the wealthiest and corporations and harder for the working class that he claims he represents. But they're talking a good game, and we need to be much more responsive to that.

[Steve Inskeep]

What is the cultural change in America that you said you felt Democrats had missed?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Well, I think there's a perception that Democrats became so focused on identity that we no longer had a message that could actually speak to people across the board or that we were only for you if you fit into a certain identity bucket. And the tragedy of that is that I believe the right kind of democratic vision is one that lifts everybody up. It pays specific attention to discrimination or mistreatment of people because they're black or because they're women or LGBTQ or whatever reason that might be. But you don't have to be in this particular combination of categories to benefit from what we have to offer. And I think we really struggled to communicate something a bit more universal, and that's been costly.

[Steve Inskeep]

Pete Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary and former presidential candidate coming up. How does he respond to some of the other critiques of the Democratic Party as AI permeates every aspect of our lives? Who are the people behind this huge inflection point?

[Pete Buttigieg]

What keeps them up at night? I fear that what it means to.

[Steve Inskeep]

Be human may suddenly not be our own. We've got a special series from NPR's TED Radio Hour.

[Pete Buttigieg]

It's called the Profits of Technology, what they Got Right Wrong and Where these Pioneers Think We're Headed Next. Listen to the TED Radio Hour. Wherever you get your podcasts, you're listening to NPR because you're curious. You want to know what the world is like beyond the surface. NPR feeds that curiosity with stories from.

[Steve Inskeep]

Real people with real experiences and all.

[Pete Buttigieg]

The perspectives that come with them. It's our right to be curious and our prerogative to listen. So keep your curiosity alive. Hear the bigger picture every day on npr.

[Steve Inskeep]

The Fantastic Four are back again in a new movie and it's an eye popping good time.

[Pete Buttigieg]

We've seen the story before, but this.

[Steve Inskeep]

Time the vibe is different. It's brighter, set in a retro future with flying cars. Plus, it stars Pedro Pascal and works.

[Pete Buttigieg]

For casual viewers and nerds alike.

[Steve Inskeep]

We'll tell you why on Pop Culture Happy Hour. Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. Their defeat to President Trump has prompted Democrats to challenge some of their party's strategies, and that was part of our discussion with Pete Buttigieg. Rahm Emanuel, former White House chief of staff and holder of other significant positions as a Democrat, gave an interview to Megyn Kelly just the other day and she asked a series of questions about trans people. He ended up contradicting most Democratic Party orthodoxy about trans people, ended up by saying, agreeing with the idea that a man cannot become a woman, and then said he was going to head for the witness protection program because he was aware that some Democrats would be unhappy. What's your approach to that and how would you try to appeal to people who disagree with you about it?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Well, I think the approach starts with compassion. Compassion for transgender people, compassion for families, especially young people who are going through this, and also empathy for people who are not sure what all of this means for them, like wondering, wait a minute, I got a daughter in a sports league. Is she going to be competing with boys right now and just taking everybody seriously? And I think when you do that, that does call into question some of the past orthodoxies in my party, for example, around sports, where I think most reasonable people would recognize that there are serious fairness issues if you just treat this as not mattering. When a trans athlete wants to compete.

[Steve Inskeep]

In women's sports, meaning the parent who's complained about this has a case in your opinion?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Sure. And that's why I think these decisions should be in the hands of sports leagues and school boards and not politicians, least of all politicians in Washington trying to use this as a political pawn.

[Steve Inskeep]

When President Trump says something like no boys and girls sports, which is a phrase that they use, it sounds like you're not standing onto that.

[Pete Buttigieg]

I think that chess is different from weightlifting, and weightlifting is different from volleyball, and, you know, middle school is different from the Olympics. So that's exactly why I think that we shouldn't be grandstanding on this. As politicians, we should be empowering communities and organizations and schools to make the right decisions.

[Steve Inskeep]

Let me ask about another argument that's been made about the Democratic Party and where it ought to go. Let's call it the Ezra Klein Derek Thompson School. There are a number of books that's theirs is maybe the most famous one that argues that government isn't working, isn't delivering for people. And a large reason is because of the way that progressives have approached government, burdening people who want to build things with too many regulations, too many opportunities to stop something. Nimbyism. As somebody who was a transportation secretary, you may be familiar with this argument. Maybe you were familiar with it before. What do you make of it?

[Pete Buttigieg]

I lived it. Look, it is too hard to build things in this country. Definitely. My experience with transportation is that it is too expensive, too complicated, too lengthy to get things done. And that's also true for a Number of things that matter enormously to the fight against climate change, or I'd say the fight to slow climate change, the need to build more clean power transmission and generation. Just to take a couple of issue sets. So I think that they pointed to a number of things that are inarguably consistent with what I experienced. At the same time, I think it would be a mistake to suppose that that's all you have to do, that there's a set of burdensome regulations and if you just got rid of them, everything would go along just fine. It does not relieve us of other things that need to happen in terms of adequately funding clean energy, transportation, housing, the other things that we need to build and recognizing where the issue has more to do with industry structure. Especially, again, I think back to transportation, where there's a lot of monopolies or oligopolies, railroads, airlines.

[Steve Inskeep]

How much of a disaster, from your point of view, is the administration creating by canceling so many projects in the middle, by ending subsidies for clean energy? On and on?

[Pete Buttigieg]

I think it's hugely costly. I think it will destroy jobs. I think it's going to lead to. We already know it's leading to higher costs of living. You know, health insurance premiums are coming out for next year. They're higher because of the Trump budget. Prices obviously are higher. I think that's partly because of the Trump administration's policies. Interest rates are going to be higher because of how much they've added to the national debt to make room for these tax cuts for the wealthiest jobs. I mean, take where I grew up, South Bend. One of the biggest things to happen, in fact, the biggest thing to happen in terms of a new auto industry investment since the 1960s, when Studebaker stopped making cars, is a facility going in in St. Joe county to create electric vehicle batteries. It was even just building it even before it opens. Has employed members of the building and construction trades in that part of Indiana where I grew up at a level not seen, I think, in my lifetime. Now, the fate of that project and so many like it have been called into question in ways that are going to hurt our economy and of course, also set us back in terms of dealing with climate change.

[Steve Inskeep]

Have we surrendered to China when it comes to clean energy, electric vehicles, wind, solar, the whole bit?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Yeah. The Trump administration is surrender to China right and left from pulling out of UNESCO so that China can exert more cultural control over how the world relates to its own heritage, to very specific dollars and cents, economic things. And I think the tragedy of that is China is trying to corner the market on green and clean tech for a strategic reason. I do not think that the Chinese Communist Party is sentimental about climate change. I think they just recognize that this is a way to dominate the economy of the future. If you give those markets up to them, as Trump seems determined to do, the result is they will win.

[Steve Inskeep]

I want to remind people that we're talking in New York City where the Democratic candidate for mayor, the nominee for mayor, is Zohran Mamdani. What do you make of him?

[Pete Buttigieg]

I think that what he achieved is extraordinary. And a big part of how he did it was by relentlessly focusing on affordability. No matter what the context, the topic, the news of the day, he went straight to the thing that was on New Yorkers minds, which is how hard it is to afford anything, rent, groceries, you name it. I think that he also, just as a matter of campaign strategy, was omnipresent. He was everywhere. He's going on podcasts, he was doing social media. And so I think a lot of more conventional political operatives didn't see him coming.

[Steve Inskeep]

Andrew Cuomo had a more conventional media campaign for sure.

[Pete Buttigieg]

And I think in many ways, in addition to the moral disqualifications that went with his history, he just didn't. If anything, he reminded, I think, a lot of people of the status quo. So I think a lot of people are focused on the leftism, the ideological leftism that I think we shouldn't be so surprised that prevailed in a New York Democratic Party primary. But I think if my party wants to learn lessons from Mamdani's success that are portable to a place like Michigan, where I live, it's less about the ideology and more about the message discipline of focusing on what people care about and the tactical wisdom of getting out there and talking to everybody.

[Steve Inskeep]

I was talking the other day to a Democratic member of Congress representing part of New York City who said to me, essentially what you're saying, Mamdani, in many ways is the future. He knew how to campaign. He's doing everything right. There's a lot to learn from him. And this lawmaker said, I haven't endorsed him yet because I have a lot of Orthodox Jews in my district. What do you make of that contradiction?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Yeah, I mean, again, it's kind of distinguishing between tactics and ideology. And I would say, you know, he's further left than I am. But also I think that what he's been able to do is something that our party ought to learn from.

[Steve Inskeep]

Would you endorse him, say, Big Ten approach? I Don't agree with him about everything. Everything. But I endorse it.

[Pete Buttigieg]

He hasn't asked me to endorse. I'm not really a player in New York City municipal politics, but I'd say that he asked. I'll talk to him about it.

[Steve Inskeep]

Sure, you would talk to him about it. Meaning you're not sure that you would or wouldn't.

[Pete Buttigieg]

Yeah. To be honest, as somebody who follows this from afar but hasn't exactly dug in on it, I haven't kind of dug in on these policy proposals he's put forward and how they would actually work. I'd want to kind of talk through that. I think the most important job, though, of any mayor. And by the way, I also emerged as a very young, some would have said, untested, disruptive figure running for mayor. Right. The most important job of any mayor is to pull a community together. You are the walking symbol of what all of the diverse, disparate people in your city have in common. And if I get a chance to talk with him, I want to talk with him about how he aims to do that.

[Steve Inskeep]

I've often felt that New York City mayors come to embody their city and that mayors in general come to embody the city in some way if they do the job well.

[Pete Buttigieg]

Yeah. Which is this amazing thing that happens. I mean, even in my city, where I served, of South Bend, Indiana, you really do gradually feel like you're sort of becoming the city, you're morphing into it, which means you kind of rise and fall with the city. And sometimes it means you take on board this pain when things are hurting in the city. But it also means you just extend yourself to other people in this beautiful way that I think is one of the reasons why mayor might be the most important and unique office in American politics.

[Steve Inskeep]

I want to ask a little bit about his policy proposals. There's been so much discussion on NPR and elsewhere about his identity and what it means. But I wonder what some of his actual proposals mean. I think of a proposal that he has. Because of affordability, it's impossible to live in New York. He proposes a rent freeze. And when I hear that as a former resident of New York City who lived at one time in a rent stabilized apartment, I think about the fact that New York has had various forms of rent control and rent stabilizations. So for generations, the government has tried this in various ways and still nobody can afford to live here. And it's extremely expensive. And his proposal now is to freeze rents at the level at which people already Say they can't afford. Does that make sense?

[Pete Buttigieg]

I think there's some very logical questions to ask about both who that helps and what comes next. Because if housing is unaffordable, one of the reasons is there's not enough housing. I mean, that's just a basic, clear fact. So what are you doing to make sure that there's more housing as well as making sure people can afford to live? But then, of course, another part of it is there's always the price. When we talk about affordability, there's price and there's income. So getting prices under control is a big deal and very important across our economy. Obviously one of the most, probably the most important, economically important, broken promise of the Trump administrations. They said they'd lower prices, and instead they're actually artificially increasing them with tariffs.

[Steve Inskeep]

Tariffs, yeah.

[Pete Buttigieg]

But the other side is income. So what is it going to take to make sure that people have income that meets the expenses that they face? And I'm not a detailed student of how those policies have been put forward in this New York election, but those are the questions I think would need to be answered for this to hold together.

[Steve Inskeep]

I guess if Mamdani were here, and in fact, he was interviewed in this very studio, he might say, no, no, I also have a plan to build more public housing. He wants the government to be engaged in building housing. Does it make sense for the government to be doing that as opposed to the private sector?

[Pete Buttigieg]

It can if there's a market failure. And I think there are market failures, certainly applying to housing in cities. But in some ways, this also brings us back to some of the things that the people in the abundance debate have pointed out, that it is too expensive. Also, it is too expensive for the government to build housing in many jurisdictions. It is more expensive for the government to build housing in California than it is in Texas. Understanding why and dealing with those is going to be vitally important, just like it was in transportation, for any public investment to actually deliver the results that it's supposed to. Otherwise, people will get even more angry because you've spent the money and you haven't solved the problem.

[Steve Inskeep]

Now, when Buttigieg ran For President in 2020, he was seen as new and interesting, a candidate under 40 and also considered more centrist than some others. A Midwesterner who knew how to talk Midwestern. And you can hear his reluctance to sign on to Mamdani's campaign substance, even as he praises the campaign's style. When we return, the Democrat talks about the politics of fear, the politics of courage and his beard. Hey everybody, it's Ian from How to Do Everything.

[Pete Buttigieg]

On our show, we attempt to answer.

[Steve Inskeep]

Your how to questions.

[Pete Buttigieg]

We don't know how to do anything.

[Steve Inskeep]

So we call experts.

[Pete Buttigieg]

Last season, both Tom Hanks and Martha Stewart stopped by to help. Our next season is launching in just a few months. So get us your questions now by emailing howtopr.org or calling 1-800-424-2935.

[Steve Inskeep]

Here's the last part of our talk with Pete Buttigieg in New York. I want to zoom back and ask how you think about the president that your party is now facing. I presume you don't think Trump is a good president. Do you see him as a bad president who's wrong about a lot of things or as an existential threat to democracy in this country?

[Pete Buttigieg]

I would go well beyond bad president. There are presidents who you disagree with and presidents you agree with. This is, I think, categorically different. We have not had a president left, right or center who has tried to destroy companies, universities and broadcasters who criticize his government. There's been rough and tumble politics all through US History. But that is not just different. It's different in a way that offends every fiber of American civic values left, right and center. We have had disagreements over court rulings, but never had an administration that has been so ready to just say no when a court says you have to do this. That is threatening at a different and much deeper level than the regular kind of push pull of the separation of powers between the executive and the courts. We have a president who really is attempting to become an autocrat and in some ways has succeeded, has succeeded. He has succeeded in changing the conduct of the private actors, universities, companies, broadcasters. I think that is as big a part or bigger of what autocracy looks like than that self editing that he's causing to happen, than kind of direct government control. So yes, in some ways he succeeded. Now, whether that holds or whether that changes, that's up to the rest of us, especially because he's doing it in the service of a very unpopular agenda. Tax cuts for the rich, cuts to Medicaid and Social Security, empowerment of corporations that are already too powerful. But I also think to come back to what I was saying earlier, that some of the things that are underway and about to accelerate, like the rise of artificial intelligence, will create completely novel challenges that the next round of American leadership will have to contend with, that even the intense Persona and concentrated power that Donald Trump represents cannot respond to.

[Steve Inskeep]

On today's terms, does the situation call for Democrats to make some kind of extreme or emergency response? And if so, what is it?

[Pete Buttigieg]

I think a lot of people feel, as a kind of emotional matter, that more has to happen. I think it's been harder to explain or express what that actually looks like, largely because it's hitting up against the simple fact that we are out of power. What I think we need to do is connect with the people we haven't been reaching and aspire not to get 51%, but 60. You know, real landslides used to happen. We used to have 60, 40 presidential elections. Now it's always 51, 49. We should aim much higher, especially because most of our policies actually have 60, 70% support on most issues, you name it. Taxes, health care, choice, even stuff like marriage or background checks on guns, where we've been a little bit afraid of our own positions like most people are with us. So obviously our ambition is not matching where we ought to be. And that's going to take intellectual ambition, too. How do we redesign these institutions that we inherited from basically the New Deal period and that have been smashed to pieces domestically and internationally? How do we contend with something as fundamentally novel as AI but it's that. It's not theatrics. I mean, theatrics have their place in politics, I guess, but it's not that you have to go out and set yourself on fire to get attention. It's actually having a good response to what's on people's minds and then taking it everywhere.

[Steve Inskeep]

As you're talking, I'm thinking of the historian Robert Dallek, who wrote a biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was president at another time when a lot of people were losing faith in democracy. And Roosevelt, he says, seemed to be conscious of that and went for 60, 40 positions. He often refrained from doing things he might like to do. In fact, history later criticized him for some things he did not want to do because he always wanted to be on the side of 60% of the people. That's what you're talking about.

[Pete Buttigieg]

I think I would put it this way. There's some things that 100% of people should be able to get behind, including freedom of the press and free expression and the rule of law and equal justice before the law. And all of us should just agree on that. Then there's the level of kind of contested policies. What I'm talking about here, where we could start right now, focusing on the things where most people are with us and at least try to deliver those first before we get into things where we might have a little more persuasion to do, Most people already get that we should have paid family leave in this country. Most people already get that your healthcare should be taken care of one way or the other in this country, and so on and so on and so on. And then there are some ideas that maybe do need more pushing to get people used to them. Things I tried to advocate for back when I was running for president. We should spend most of our time and effort, I think, on things that we really know should happen that Republicans are against, but Americans are for and be asked to get a chance to implement them.

[Steve Inskeep]

As you're talking, I'm thinking about the fact that Democrats warned that the president would do a lot of these things if he was elected. He has done a lot of these things. Many of his policies have been unpopular, and yet he still has this fundamental base of support. It's somewhere in the 40s, according to surveys. And a lot of other people don't seem that alarmed, don't seem as alarmed as you are about what the president is doing. Why do you think that is?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Well, in terms of what it would take for him and his supporters to break faith with each other, I think we have learned it's a very high bar because Trumpism has become a worldview unto itself. But I think there are moments where he has revealed how little respect he has for his own supporters. That's one of the reasons why I think the Epstein saga is especially relevant, because by telling them that this was important and that he would do something, and then by turning around saying he won't do something and that they're stupid if they care about this, he's putting his thumb in their eye even more than usual. Basically, he's saying that he thinks they're gullible, but we do have to look at what we're doing. That makes it hard to hear what we have to say. Too often we talk in terms that are academic. When we're talking about deeply important things like freedom and democracy, we still have to have a way of talking about it that relates to how everyday life is different and how your everyday life is different and worse. If you, for example, are paying more at the store because of tariffs that were implemented, even though most Americans don't want them because we're no longer democratically responding to the American people or, you know, pointing out that it's not just autocracy is bad, though it is. It's that when you have an autocrat in power, he can get away with appointing incompetent people over very important things in our lives. So right now we have the Secretary of Defense in charge of defending the American people, who is accidentally texting military strike information to journalists. We have the person in charge of American public health who is a quack, who doesn't believe in medicine. And now measles is on the rise in America. We have a Secretary of Education in charge of your kids educational well being who has spoken about the importance of A1, which means she does not understand that the acronym is AI, which means she does not understand the most important development affecting education in our lifetimes. We have a Secretary of Homeland Security who sat on funding and did not allow it to go to Texas during the floods for at least two days for no good reason. And my replacement over at the DOT was an airline lobbyist. So these things do affect you, not for academic reasons, but because of what happens if you have a loss of accountability. Those are the kinds of things I think we need to talk about before anybody can hear us in these high minded academic discussions about freedom and democracy.

[Steve Inskeep]

It's not clear to me that it's broken through the idea that it would be undemocratic for a president who was elected, who did get the most votes, to do what he wants. And that, of course, is Trump's argument. I'm President. I won. I should enact my policy. And if there is a law or a rule that stands in my way, that must be unconstitutional, I should get to do what I want.

[Pete Buttigieg]

And look, we have things happening now in terms of, for example, broadcasters having their licenses threatened because they disagree with the government.

[Steve Inskeep]

Yeah.

[Pete Buttigieg]

Or people being snatched off the streets by masked federal agents. Things that I would have thought of as the fever dreams of libertarians and conservatives that I was arguing with back when I was a student who were warning darkly of government overreach. And I thought that was overcooked. And now it's happening, only it's happening under a supposedly conservative government. So, yeah, these things can happen. Even if the president was elected democratically, even if he came to office by legitimate means, obviously these things can happen, but they shouldn't. The founders thought long and hard and somewhat disagreed about whether to create the presidency at all because they were afraid of how much power it would have. And it turns out that two things kept the presidency from having too much power. One was the Constitution and all the checks and balances and the systems and separation of powers. And the other was a certain level of fidelity to that idea on the part of every other person who has become president except this one. Turns out you need both.

[Steve Inskeep]

I need to ask about one other thing along these lines. I hear conversations from people who bring up the factor of fear. Political leaders, Republicans as well as Democrats who are afraid of crossing the president, afraid of future consequences to their careers, afraid of the future ability to get a job, afraid even of physical violence. In your conversations with people in your party, how large a factor is fear?

[Pete Buttigieg]

I think it's real. It's more real than at any point in my lifetime, whether we're talking about fear of violence that reportedly affected how Republican senators voted on the last impeachment of Donald Trump, to fear of loss of funding that I think is already impacting who gets invited to speak at a university or who gets hired at a law firm. That's real, and we can't allow that. The thing about politics of fear is the more you give into it, the worse it gets. The only antidote to a politics of fear is a politics of courage.

[Steve Inskeep]

One last crazy question is on my mind. I studied the 19th century, and there's an interesting bit of trivia about presidents. In the 19th century, in the early generations of the United States, no president had a beard. And then Lincoln had a beard. And there was a period of 60 or 70 years where the overwhelming majority of presidents had beards. Beards were more popular in society. And there are even people who've written about the deep societal meanings of that. I notice you have a beard. Vice President Vance has a beard. A number of other prominent political figures have beards. Do you think a future president will have a beard?

[Pete Buttigieg]

Well, my beard is less related to deep societal meaning and more related to not feeling like shaving for the first time in 15 years where I'm not in office or on the ballot. But yeah, I don't know. These things go through seasons, I guess, or cycles.

[Steve Inskeep]

If you were to run, would you shave it?

[Pete Buttigieg]

That's a double hypothetical. The big swing vote on my beard comes from our son, who has yet to weigh in. My husband, Chastain, is strongly pro beard. Our daughter is pretty anti beard. She says it's too scratchy when I kiss her goodnight when I tuck her in. Our little guy Gus, has yet to weigh in, so we'll see what he has to say.

[Steve Inskeep]

Mr. Buttigieg, thanks so much. Really enjoyed it.

[Pete Buttigieg]

Thank you. Likewise.

[Steve Inskeep]

Appreciate it. This has been a special edition of Up FIRST from NPR News. Our editor is Reena Advani. Our producer is Phil Harrell. And our engineer is Sina Lofredo. Our executive producer is Jay Shaler. Continue joining us in this feed for the top stories each day and special reports like this one. I'm Steve Inskeep.

[Pete Buttigieg]

Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon prime members can listen to Up First Sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get up first [e-mail] that's plus.NPR.org Federal funding for public media has been eliminated. That means decades of bipartisan support for public radio and television is ending. To be clear, NPR isn't going anywhere. But we do need your support. Please give today to help keep rigorous, independent and irreplaceable news coverage available to everybody, free of charge. You can make your [e-mail] and thank you.