PA Governor Josh Shapiro’s “Get Sh*t Done” Attitude
53:00 Share

On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Join Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app today and earn your spot at the festival. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.com.

It's on!

Hi, everyone, from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. My guest today is Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat who's being touted as a future presidential hopeful and whose state could swing the election this fall. Shapiro won his first governor's race in 2022 by a huge margin, thanks in part to a record-breaking war chest.

Before that, as Pennsylvania's attorney general, he fought and won several lawsuits brought by former President Donald Trump's campaign following the 2020 election.

Despite having to wrangle with a divided state legislature, Shapiro's also managed to get some stuff done, including implementing the first government collaboration with OpenAI. And he's been in the spotlight for rallying against rising anti-Semitism in the midst of the Hamas-Israel war, including speaking out about the lack of action at the University of Pennsylvania. He all but called for former pen president Liz McGill to go shortly before she resigned. I'll ask him about all of that.

Our question this week comes from Dave McCormick, the former Bridgewater CEO who lost his GOP Senate primary bid to Dr. Oz in 2022 and is now back on the campaign trail.

As you know, the situation at the southern border is a national security and humanitarian disaster. Under the Biden administration's watch, over two million migrants have been released into the country. My opponent, Bob Casey, has in the past voted to support sanctuary cities, opposed the construction of border defenses, and voted against Kate's law, which would have set a mandatory minimum for deported felons who illegally reenter the United States.

Governor, if you had been in office in 2016 when Bob Casey voted to support sanctuary cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, what would you have done? Well, that's what a candidate would ask, but that's OK. It's a good question. Lots to talk about with Governor Shapiro after a short break.

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash tech, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash tech.

Hey, how you doing? It's great to meet you. I'm so excited to do this. Oh, good. So I want to start off with the elections. Pennsylvania is a perennial swing state. Biden flipped it in 2020, but only won by a hair. His approval ratings in the state are pretty low right now. You've been campaigning with Biden. He's already been to Pennsylvania twice this month. Obviously, he's from there. He grew up there. Can he carry the state?

Of course he can. I mean, look, he carried it in 2020 by about 80,000 votes. I think what we have learned in Pennsylvania is our voters are discerning. They're careful. They study. They tend to break late in elections. And they're close. And I fully expect this to be a close election. Why do you think it's neck and neck in the polls? Why is he struggling so much? And is it just because he's the incumbent and people always sort of attack the incumbent? What does he need to get a win?

Yeah, I think you're asking two different things here, Kara. First, about the polling and what does he need to win? And if I may, let me kind of separate those out. First on the polling, I mean, look, one...

we're a year out, 11 months out. And so I don't pay a huge amount of attention to the polls. I'm not saying that to like duck or dodge your question. Just the reality is the polls are kind of a starting point. This race hasn't joined. I think a lot of folks kind of have a little bit of brain fog about Trump. They don't totally remember the chaos that he brought when he was president before. And similarly, I don't think they, and this kind of bleeds into the second part of your question, I don't think they fully appreciate all that Joe Biden has done.

Right. I don't think they kind of put two and two together that, you know, I got 276,000 homes and businesses, churches, VFWs that don't have high speed Internet that are going to get that over the next five years because of something President Biden did. Right. Like, I don't think they've sort of connected the dots on something basic like that. And that's why is that? I mean, some people think it's the messaging.

People can say they don't like the economy and then turn around and say they're doing better. They seem unhappy, like Americans seem unhappy and they're blaming Biden for it. Is it a messaging issue that it doesn't get through, that they think Bidenomics is terrible? They seem to think that.

I think in part, the campaign hasn't joined yet and they haven't gone out and explained a lot of this to people. But second, you touch on something very real. Look, folks are worried right now, right? And folks are battling higher costs. In some communities, they're battling crime levels that are unacceptable. They're wondering if they can afford to buy a home because interest rates are out. Like, these are very real things. And we shouldn't just

dismiss that. We shouldn't only look at those things in the context of a presidential campaign. I think there is a burden on any incumbent to explain how you're addressing those issues based on what you've done in the past and what you plan to do in the future to address it. I think it's incumbent upon the president and others when they stand before the people of Pennsylvania or anywhere in this country to talk about how they've done that.

Now, I think President Biden has a track record on doing that. I think the campaign is the moment to explain that. What's he waiting for? I mean, he did win that speech about democracy and freedom. He's been talking about that. But most people do vote on real things, like this costs too much. I don't feel good about the future. This guy says what he thinks. This is Trump. And I'll forgive him all his trespasses. Again, I've forgotten about them at least.

Why isn't it getting through? I think to some extent it hasn't started. But you touch on something and then you kind of quickly dismissed it. I mean this respectfully. Go ahead, please. I'm not trying to give you a hard time. But you talked about how the president gave that speech on January 6th in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, which, by the way, I was there. I thought it was a really effective speech. I agree. And then you kind of dismissed it. No, I don't dismiss.

the speech at all. I thought it was a fantastic speech. Finally, he was speaking up. Right, but then you said, I think people kind of vote on these other tangible things. I also think that. Look, folks are worried about cost. They're worried about crime. They're worried about stuff like that. They shouldn't also have to worry about their democracy and their institutions. And I will tell you, having lived in here in Pennsylvania...

Democracy was front and center in 2020 when Joe Biden won Pennsylvania. And I will tell you, when I won in 2022, and I earned more votes than anybody in the history of Pennsylvania running for governor. I'm not saying that to pat myself on the back. I'm saying that because we brought Democrats, Republicans, and independents together to support my campaign. And a huge part of my campaign was about protecting democracy and securing real freedom from one of Donald Trump's chief offsprings in that election who I was running against.

So I do think these issues are on people's minds. They may not articulate it the way they articulate their concern about high grocery bills, which is a legitimate concern. But I do think it's out there. And I think it's important for the president to be able to walk and chew gum, both in

to talk about the things he's done to improve those economic things in people's lives, and to talk about the importance of protecting our democracy at the same time. So you think that does resonate, which was an excellent speech. I'm not trying to discount that it was one of his better speeches. I just discussed this with historian Heather Cox Richardson. Biden has been saying that democracy and freedom are on the ballot, and so have you. As Attorney General, you went up against Trump and his administration in court a

Dozens of times, including fighting his claims of election fraud. You won a lot. But recently you told reporters that neither you nor your secretary of state, Al Schmidt, had the power to take Trump off the ballot like they're trying to do in Colorado and Maine. Explain why.

Yeah. Look, I'm a former attorney general of Pennsylvania, as you noted. I call it the way I see it. I went to court against Donald Trump 43 times and won every single time because I stayed focused on the law and I stayed focused on applying the law without fear or favor and based on the facts of the case. And so when I'm asked a question about, hey, could you or your secretary of state in Pennsylvania, I appoint the secretary of state.

And I think it's important to note the Secretary of State is a Republican, right? Because I think running elections should be a nonpartisan activity. But I have to call it the way I see it. And the law does not allow me or Secretary Schmidt here in Pennsylvania to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot. Only the courts can.

can do that. And so rather than sort of playing political games here, I just want to be straight up with the people of Pennsylvania and explain what that authority is. So you said it should be decided through the ballot box, but others have thought differently. How do you look at their arguments and where it's going to go in the Supreme Court?

I mean, look, I think the arguments are different based on the states that you're in. And some states, secretaries of state have absolute power to make these decisions. In my state, it's up to the courts. I think at the end of the day, though, it is pretty damn likely that it's going to be Donald Trump versus Joe Biden. Yeah, you said that. The most effective thing we can do is beat Donald Trump at the ballot box. I think our institutions...

our democracy are counting on it. I don't think we want to go back to the kind of chaos Donald Trump brought to this country. I think we have got to focus on protecting this nation from that and continuing making progress here as a country. So you appointed Secretary of State Schmidt, who is a Republican. He was your very first nomination after you were elected in 2022. Explain that choice. Well, first off, Al led the elections office in the city of Philadelphia.

He was attacked. And by the way, as a Republican, attacked relentlessly by Donald Trump, so much so that he and his family had to have police protection. He received death threats. This guy is just a career public servant, a good man who puts integrity first and leans in to make sure that we can have free and fair, safe and secure democracy.

And I think it was very important to me to show that here in Pennsylvania, running an election, I'm not talking about your political preferences or who you support, but running an election should be a nonpartisan exercise. And I think it's critically important that we signal that.

And that we effectuate that. And that's why Al was not only my first appointee, because I wanted folks to know how important democracy and electioneering is, but also that he'd be a Republican to show that no one party sort of corners the market when it comes to election integrity, that there are people in both parties that can do that. And Al is doing a great job leading the Department of State for us.

It wasn't just voting is nonpartisan. He did stand up against Trump. He's not a Trump accolade. I doubt you would. He's not a Trump accolade. But what I'm saying is in the midst of all the pressure not to count certain votes and to count other votes that weren't even present. Right. Donald Trump was claiming there were all these extra votes. There weren't. Al did the right thing.

And I think what folks want more than anything right now is elected leaders and appointed leaders with real integrity. Whether they agree with them or not on a particular issue, they want folks with integrity. And I tried to signal that with my first appointment, and Al has continued to lead with real integrity. So you have, though, made some changes to the voting process ahead of this year's election. For one, you simplified the mail-in ballot process. Anyone getting their driver's license in Pennsylvania now automatically is registered to vote. Republicans...

Push back on this. Trump ranted on True Social it was going to be a, quote, disaster for the election of Republicans, including him.

what's the impact you're seeing on registration numbers? It seems like independents have actually pulled in the most new voters. We've seen a jump in registrations because it's now easier. You just do it at the DMV when you're getting your driver's license. What we have seen is it's broken down largely on similar lines to how people are registering in a more traditional way. And we're seeing kind of an upsurge in more independent minded voters, not hugely different from what we're seeing in other ways of registering.

In terms of what it means politically, it seems pretty clear that Donald Trump is poised to win the Republican primary. Obviously, Joe Biden poised to win the Democratic primary. We have a late primary in Pennsylvania. And so we've always sort of been viewed as the swingiest of swing states. And that is more a November election question than a primary election question. So in terms of the impact? Yeah.

Just more people voting. Yeah, I mean, just hopefully more people voting, more people, you know, being engaged in our democracy. So a lot of county election directors in Pennsylvania want more updates. They want poll workers to be able to start counting ballots before Election Day. They also want to update the election code so it's harder to challenge the results.

Any chance of getting that done? These are bipartisan things that election clerks and county commissioners and Republican and Democratic counties all want. You know, I'm the only governor, Cara, in the entire nation with a divided legislature. I've got one chamber led by Democrats, one led by Republicans.

So we've always got to find common ground, bipartisanship to get big things done. And we get a lot of shit done here. Well, you don't always. Look at our Senate, look at our Congress. Go ahead. We live by three letters, GSD, get stuff done, get shit done. That is our approach in Pennsylvania. And I think we'll look for ways to find common ground when it comes to election fixes to strengthen our system.

Al Schmidt wasn't the only poll worker who faced threats in 2020. There were protests outside the convention center. It got a lot of attention at the time. What are you doing to ensure safety, and do you expect that again this year? I put together a task force, a strike force here within our state government that's actually been meeting for months already. And we're focused on ensuring that people have—that we have a free and fair, safe and secure election.

People have unfettered access to the ballot box. Of course, those who are legal eligible voters, anyone who wants to vote by mail is able to do so securely. That's sort of one focus of our team. The second focus of our team is more of a law enforcement bent, making sure that polling places are free from violence and threats, that those who are election workers, those who administer the process are able to do so without threats to their own safety. And then we've got a legal team focused on

you know, whatever legal challenges may come, whether it's from Donald Trump or any other entity, we want to make sure that every legal eligible voter can cast their ballot and that every single one of those votes will be counted and that the will of the people will be respected. And as attorney general, I did a lot of the same work. We have a track record of success.

I know what I'm doing here in Pennsylvania, and we're going to have another free and fair, safe and secure election. But those images were disturbing from Pennsylvania, particularly. Are you worried about this happening again? Or do you feel it's burnt itself out? I don't think it's burnt itself out because Donald Trump hasn't burnt himself out. If anything, he's only gotten crazier, and he's only gotten—

more aggressive. He's only gotten more threatening. He's more unmoored, if you will, than he was years ago. And so I'm incredibly concerned about it. That's why we've been already meeting and working on this and why we'll be prepared in the run-up to both the primary and the general election.

And that means any scenario. I mean, there was a scenario on succession, as you know, at the end, there was a fire, for example, firebombing at an election site. But is there one you're more worried about than others?

I'm worried about all of it, right? I want to make sure I've got the best lawyers ready to go to court to ensure that we protect the will of the people, that we're going to coordinate local, state, and federal law enforcement officials to make sure that people have access to the ballot box and they can feel secure when they go cast their ballots and people working there can feel secure. I'm concerned about all of it. I don't know that I'd be doing my job effectively as governor and Secretary Schmidt as secretary if I focused only on one. We're focused on all of it.

So I want to switch gears a bit. You won your gubernatorial race by a landslide in 2022 against a pro-Trump candidate, who was not a great candidate, I would say. But you also had a massive war chest. You reportedly spent more than $70 million, which is, I think, record-breaking. But there's been calls to reform campaign finance laws and stop political— essentially a political arms race for limiting the amount an individual can donate. Pennsylvania does not do that right now. And as a person who benefited from current laws—

that puts you at a disadvantage, but would you support it? Yeah, I'll tell you what. I used to be a state lawmaker here in Pennsylvania many years ago. I sponsored legislation to cap donations, kind of similar to the federal thing. I will say, I think you have to be careful when you do that, that you don't just open up the floodgates for dark money and special interest packs to come in and supplant what the candidates do. And while our system is far from ideal, we have transparency. If someone donates a dollar or a

$100,000 or whatever it is to you, the public knows that. And they can judge you based on the fact that you take that donation or don't take that donation, whatever the case may be. So you think it would just slow more to dark people?

Well, I think you'd have to guard against that. You'd have to figure out how to constitutionally guard against that. What I don't want to do is create a system here in Pennsylvania where all we're doing is adding more dark money to the system at the state level. That's not something that has typically been as much of a challenge as we've seen at the federal level.

So let's move on to other actions as governor, starting with this AI executive order you signed last fall. It establishes a framework for using generative AI by government agencies, including establishing an AI governing board. This came out a month ahead of Biden's executive order, where I was...

I was there when he did that. I thought it was a pretty good executive order, but it's an executive order nonetheless. What was the thinking for you doing this? And one of the big issues around privacy is they never made a national privacy bill. It was a lot of state bills, especially in privacy on California. It's really a global issue too. Why are states playing here? There's so many layers to this. And I love what you've had to say on your podcast, your writings on this. I've followed you and others closely who

who opine on this issue every day, because here in Pennsylvania, I want us to be taking a proactive approach when it comes to AI. I believe AI is a job enhancer for our state government, not a job replacer.

And fundamentally, I want to create a system where there is no wrong door for entry when you want to get help from your state government, whether you show up at the government building, you call the 1-800 number, or whether you go online. And I think AI can be a tool to deliver services far more effectively without displacing our workforce and really to the betterment of the good people of Pennsylvania. Now, we've got to do this in an

ethical and responsible way that protects privacy. It's why I signed a very specific executive order as governor to do just that. I think we're the first state in the nation to deploy these AI tools and to use them in a way that's trying to help our folks. And to answer the first part of your question, the reason why states are in this game, or at least I can speak for Pennsylvania why I'm in this game, is because

You know, nothing's happening in D.C. and internationally. To your point, this is an international issue. While we've seen some leadership from the EU, we are not seeing America lead in these ways. And so I think, as Justice Brandeis once famously said, states are the laboratories of democracy. And here in Pennsylvania, we're trying to show how we can use AI in an effective way. Yeah.

Who are you sharing information with? Other states are using AI in other ways. What's the general thinking of the National Governors Association? And does it fall on party lines or is this something bigger? Is it going to become – a lot of these tech issues become free speech or whatever nonsense Josh Hawley tends to say. But it becomes –

You know, it becomes political. Has this become political? Not to me. I've not felt that this kind of breaks down on a Republican or Democratic line. And obviously some issues certainly do amongst governors. This does not. I think what I have found with governors is there's sort of a group that say, uh-uh, we're not doing this.

and, you know, no to AI. Then you've had some other governors who have said, you know, we should study this. And by the way, I think they're earnest and they're thoughtful about it, but they want to take their time and study it. We've tried to take a different approach, which is to say, look,

This is here. This is going to change workforce. This is going to change our society. Let's get with it instead of being a tail on this. And so that is why we've leaned in as aggressively we have. We think we can be aggressive in this space while still doing it in an ethical, responsible way that protects privacy. And that's the approach we're taking. So I'm not being critical of any other governor. We're just looking at this a little bit differently. You launched a pilot program recently.

for some employees in the office administration to start using chat GPT enterprise. I'd love you to talk a little bit about it and how you envision it. What's give me one example of how you look at this. So look, when you interact with state government, and this is probably true of really any state government, there's so many different tasks that,

that a state government performs. So you might reserve a site for your tent in one of our state parks through a state government website or portal. You might be getting your kid with autism services that they need. You might re-register your car, whatever the case may be. And there are certain tasks

that I would sort of say a little bit more mundane, a little bit more routine. And if we could have technology help address some of that, by the way, the end user, my constituent, probably like it better because it'll move more quickly. And then it frees up our workforce significantly

to deal with the more complex, difficult, challenging cases where you want a human being interacting with the other human being on the phone or in person, whatever, working through an issue that is really complex and layered. So I view this as a way of sort of addressing some of the routine needs

folks in our state by our state government while freeing up our employees to do some of the more complex, challenging tasks. So there obviously are concerns, and you seem to have been closing a deal while Sam Alton was facing the ins and outs at OpenAI, which I'm sure you followed. Did you engage personally with him on the deal? I didn't engage directly with Sam. We engaged with some of his leadership on this. We were obviously paying

careful attention to this to see sort of how it landed. I was following your reporting and others. I think we feel comfortable given the way in which our kind of personal information in Pennsylvanians is walled off from any of the broader generative work that's going on. We feel comfortable with now the stability of where open AI is and the ability to protect the interests of Pennsylvanians while being able to get more shit done more quickly using technology.

Sure. Your office said that no government or resident data will be used to train the models, but, you know, they're everywhere. There's lawsuits. There's everything else. Two things. What kind of security measures are in place to prevent that from happening? Because these people tend to take information. They're like the Borg in that regard. Not them in particular, but the Internet people. And then, you know, there's that broader debate about acceleration and deceleration. Yeah.

Yeah, I think, look, we have got a great CIO who is working with a team of professionals from Carnegie Mellon University, from Penn State University, Drexel, some in the private sector here in Pennsylvania, to address exactly what you just raised, right? How do we protect this private information? How do we ensure none of it makes its way out of our sort of

bubble, if you will. I realize that's not the most technical of terms. That's fine. And then how do we use the information we gather from Pennsylvanians for their individual benefit while not allowing it to go into the broader generative space? And I think we've constructed a really good game plan, both with the in-house expertise we have, as well as the big brains we've been able to assemble from across Pennsylvania and the country who are helping us with this.

And with jobs, you said you're not planning to replace government workers with chat GPTs, but of course, efficiencies are often a code word for job cuts and reducing overhead would free up budget. Are you sticking with that, that no government job cuts because of efficiencies created through AI? Yeah.

Yeah, I've made clear this is not trying to replace Pennsylvania workers by any stretch. And we've got to use technology to enhance their experience as employees and enhance their ability to deliver for our constituents.

Cara, I do think, though, this is part of a broader national dialogue we need to be having on workforce issues, right? We are struggling across the board on workforce. And by the way, this is probably one of the paramount issues that should be being discussed, whether it's a presidential campaign or any other place. We simply don't have enough people to do the jobs we need to do today or let alone tomorrow as our population ages and leaves the workforce. And so I think what we need to do is both...

train the workers we need for tomorrow. It's why we're investing so much in VoTech and other things in our high schools, more apprenticeship program, more focus on computer science, you know, certificates and other things in our community colleges and our local state colleges. And we also have to figure out ways in which technology can enhance the workforce. Look, with

We'll be back in a minute.

You're working with a divided legislature, as you noted. In the first year, you've done a couple things that one would expect of a Democratic governor. You came out swinging to stand by abortion rights and have terminated state funding for anti-abortion centers. You've called on the state legislature to abolish the death penalty, but you've also supported lowering the state's corporate tax rate. Was it an attempt to appease Republicans who control the state Senate?

Both you and John Fetterman have surprised people. I'll get to him in a second. Yeah. I mean, I don't do things to surprise people or appease people. I just do stuff that I think is common sense. And I try and focus on putting—I'm a sports guy. I try and put points on the board every single day. And, you know, in a divided legislature, you've got to compromise. And I realize compromise sometimes becomes a dirty word at the national level.

But here in Pennsylvania, if I can get 70% or 80% of what I want, compromise and help someone else on the other side get a little bit of what they want, provided that doesn't sort of go against my core beliefs, we're going to do that. I think we've proven that when it comes to we invest a historic amount in education funding, including things like funding mental health for our students for the first time, universal free breakfast for the first time. I got that done with Republicans and Democrats.

I campaigned on safety and security to hire more police officers. We got that done with Democrats and Republican votes, leaned in heavily on economic development. I won't bore you with all the details, but again, Democratic and Republican votes. I'm going to continue to try and bring folks from both parties together to get big things done. Very difficult to do that these days. I think you'd agree, especially at a national level. So every week we ask an outside expert for a question.

And this week, I decided to have someone who has been opposed to you. We got a call from Dave McCormick, the hedge fund manager who lost the Pennsylvania GOP Senate primary bid to Dr. Mehmet Oz in 2022 and is now campaigning for Senate again. Let's listen to his question for you. Sure. Here's my question to Governor Shapiro.

As you know, the situation at the southern border is a national security and humanitarian disaster. Under the Biden administration's watch, over two million migrants have been released into the country. My opponent, Bob Casey, has in the past voted to support sanctuary cities, opposed the construction of border defenses, and voted against Kate's law, which would have set a mandatory minimum for deported felons who illegally reenter the United States.

Governor, if you had been in office in 2016 when Bob Casey voted to support sanctuary cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, what would you have done?

I think that's a pretty decent question. I know he's campaigning. I get it. I get it. But that's okay. I mean, he's campaigning. It's a lot of political... Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead. Respond. First off, Bob Casey's got a strong track record. I stand with Bob Casey and, you know, the former hedge fund guy has done nothing in this space. But I do think it's a fair question to ask the governor, where do you stand on these issues? And I'm someone who believes...

that we've got to have a strong and secure border. I'm someone who thinks that we have a broken immigration system in Washington through Democratic, and by the way, Dave, Republican leadership as well, has failed to secure the border and has failed to create a pathway to citizenship and has failed to articulate clear guidelines for how someone can legally immigrate to this country.

I don't think this should be an either or, Cara. I think we've got to do all of the above. I think we've got to secure our border. We've got to have a pathway for citizenship for folks who are here. And we've got to make sure that we've got clear rules of the road going forward. I think this has been a bipartisan failure over many years. And I think this is something that has to get done. Demagoguing it and playing political games with it

is not the answer. Actually, rolling up your shirt sleeves and doing something constructive is, and I've tried to be a voice of reason on that. What would be constructive from your point of view? I think you should fund border security and negotiate a broader immigration deal that creates a pathway for citizenship and has clear rules of the road going forward for those who want to legally immigrate to this country. We have to have a secure border and we have to have clear rules. So,

So I love you saying former hedge fund guy. That's like an insult, isn't it? These days. Anyway, it's fine. You can do that. One issue you've been going against the Democratic norm is on school vouchers, which have been a battleground in states nationwide. You initially put your weight behind a Republican-backed $100 million private school voucher proposal. Then line item vetoed it under pressure from Democrats. Republicans called it backpedaling. There was a budget deadlock of more than five months.

But the budget finally passed in December, including $150 million in funding for tax credit scholarships. Republicans are tending, and it's a huge win for school choice. Talk a little bit about this issue, because it's one that has also become political, but people have, you know, reasonable points of view on this. Look, I think some of the political back and forth here in Pennsylvania, I'm not sure I'd agree with how you characterized it, but I think one thing— All right, characterize it the way you want. No, but it's fair. One thing that I have been crystal clear on as a candidate—

And as a governor, I've never wavered from this. And that is that I believe all God's children deserve a shot here in Pennsylvania. And I think if you're a poor kid or you're from a poor family in a struggling school district, we should be adding opportunity. We should be giving you more assistance. We should be providing you more resources.

And if you want to use those resources to get tutoring or you want to use those resources for books, computers, you name it, or you want to use those resources to attend another school, you should be able to do that.

I think it is important to note that what I've always supported is adding resources to the conversation, not taking anything away. So when you use the term voucher, what that historically has meant is, you know, if young Kara goes from this public school to this private school, we're taking money away from young Kara's

public school. That is not what I support, never have. But what we're doing is we're saying we're going to leave young Kara's public school with all the resources they need to be successful, because I believe in our public schools and they are a public good and they need to be there. But there's no reason why we can't add additional money. And so- By the way, Kara hasn't been young for a very long time. But in any case, poor school districts recently won a landmark lawsuit against the state declaring the school funding system unconstitutional. Public school advocates say that even though

the new education budget is sizable, that you aren't doing enough to level the playing field. They say they need billions of dollars to fix the disparity. So you can say it's additive, but what's the game plan for this year's budget and where are you going to get the money? Yeah. We have a commission here in Pennsylvania that just wrapped up its work that

My team, along with a bipartisan group of lawmakers, worked on to address both sides of this, both the formula to drive out the money, and that is to make it more equitable, right? So it goes to the school districts most in need. And then the second piece is adding more resources, adding more dollars to public education. When I unveil my budget in just a couple weeks here, you're going to see both a commitment to that formula of equity and

And you're going to see an historic amount that I'm proposing be invested in our public schools. I think it's really important that we elevate our public schools. We drive the dollars out to those schools that are most in need. And to our conversation a moment ago about, you know, young Kara going, you know, needing some extra help. I've never viewed the school issue as an either or. I viewed it as a both and. We need to invest in our public schools individually.

And we need to help those kids that are struggling. Sure, but school choice has been a Republican rallying cry, you know, whether you call them vouchers or not.

Well, I mean, I think historically things have maybe been a Republican rally cry. I think this is common sense. I think it's common sense to help kids that are most in need. And I think one of the things Pennsylvanians know about me is I work my ass off for them every day. I fight for them and I try and put forth common sense proposals. I do not simply follow one orthodoxy left or right. I try and do things that are common sense.

So let's talk about that. Does it concern you when you're not towing the Democratic Party line with some of these things? Do you think it hurts your prospects down the road? I assume we will talk about your prospects down the road. I don't think about that at all. I think about trying to put my best forward to help the good people of Pennsylvania and

Based on the election results and based on how I'm standing here in Pennsylvania, when you ask folks how we're doing, I feel pretty good about where we are. This is a common sense state. And I think, you know, I work for the people of Pennsylvania. I don't work for any particular group or party orthodoxy.

I will say my Trumpy relatives like you a lot, oddly enough, because they don't like anyone else. But anyway, in any case, I don't know if you want that, but there they are. Speaking of spools, I want to talk about the University of Pennsylvania, where you are a non-voting member of the board in a controversy over President Liz McGill. She testified to Congress on December 5th and failed to say that calling for genocide against Jews would violate the school's code of conduct. You are Jewish. You speak openly about your faith. Talk about that moment when you heard her say that and what went on in your mind.

Yeah, Cara, I think leaders need to speak and act with moral clarity. I've said that about the former president, and I think that it holds true not just for people in elected office, but for people in positions of prominence, whether it is journalists like yourself, big business leaders, university leaders, you name it.

And Liz McGill, the former president of Penn, had a moment where she had the opportunity to give a clear one word answer in response to that congresswoman's question. And she not only failed to give the simple answer of yes.

Yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews was wrong, but she also failed that basic test of leading and speaking and acting with moral clarity. And I thought it was important to call that out. I think it is important to call that out when it happens on the left or the right. When you heard it, what did you think? When you actually heard it, what did you think?

You know, I saw a clip of her testimony a few hours after she delivered it. And I just cringed. And I was...

both sad and angry at the same time. And you need to understand that there was weeks of history there, months of history there where I had been working with the former president and working with some leaders at the university of Pennsylvania who had been fumbling routinely, um, combating antisemitism on campus. I had given them concrete steps. I thought they needed to take, they failed to take any of them. They failed to act, um, you know, uh,

And then this to me was sort of the final straw, and I felt that it was important to speak up and call it out. Importantly, I did say to the board that I thought I wasn't going to call on her to resign, but I thought they needed to make a decision and make a decision quickly as to whether or not

The comments she made before Congress and all of her actions leading up to that reflected the values of the University of Pennsylvania and the board. And obviously, they carefully considered that. And you know how the story played out. What do you say, though, to people who are wary of a governor weighing in on free speech issues on a private college campus?

Don't listen to me if you don't like my opinion. But the bottom line is, it's my responsibility to speak up and to speak and act with moral clarity. Cara, I'm sitting right here in the governor's office in the Capitol, and just outside my window, a month, month and a half ago, there was a peaceful protest of folks who were supportive of the Palestinian position of what's happening in the Middle East. And by the way, espousing a lot of views that

I don't necessarily personally agree with. And as that rally ended and folks descended from the Capitol steps outside my window here, someone brandished a weapon and threatened them and engaged in an alleged act of ethnic intimidation. That person, thankfully, was charged by the local prosecutor. And you know what? I called that out as well.

I think it is important that we speak out on these issues. And more broadly about, or more specifically about higher education, I mean, higher education institutions shouldn't be immune from outside criticism. It shouldn't be immune from outside critique. And so if someone doesn't like what I have to say, they can ignore me or they can get over it.

I don't really care. Well, speaking of getting over it, fellow Pennsylvania Democrat Senator John Fetterman has gotten a lot of praise from the Jewish community for his pro-Israel stance since the war broke out. And he recently co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to address anti-Semitism on college campuses. But he's also gotten a lot of flack from liberal Democrats. And Fetterman says he's shedding the progressive label. I think you never know what he's going to think, actually. Do you think this conflict has created a divide in the party or just made it visible?

I think it is clear that within the Democratic Party, there are people who have really different views on what's happening in the Middle East. I'll tell you where I am on this. I think there's sort of two conversations that

we need to have. And it's hard to always hold two conversations at the same time, particularly when there's some nuance in it in this type of social media era. But you're giving me a few minutes here. I'll take it. I think there is no nuance when it comes to what happened on October 7th.

Hamas, which is a terrorist organization as designated by the United States of America in an unprovoked attack, killed over 1,000 Israelis, Americans, and other multinationals. They raped and committed horrific sexual crimes against women, and they took people hostage, including Americans. That is black and white. What they did was wrong. And anyone trying to justify Hamas's actions, I think, is fundamentally wrong.

There is no nuance there, in my opinion. Here's where there is nuance. When it comes to the policy in the Middle East going forward, I am someone who believes in a two-state solution. I think we need to create a state for Palestinians as well as a secure state for Israel. I think that there should be really one key precondition for negotiations, and that is the Palestinians'

And whoever is leading them, whether it's the Palestinian Authority or others, renounce violence against Israel and recognize Israel's right to exist. And I think Israel needs to find new leadership because Benjamin Netanyahu is a horrible leader who continues to steer Israel in the wrong direction. They need to find leadership in Israel that's willing to engage. Now, in order to have that dialogue, you've got to return the hostages.

the violence has to end. And we've got to make sure that there is the real prospect for peace. All of what I've just described to you in the second part of my answer, that is nuanced. And I get the fact that there are people who agree with me and disagree with me, but there should be no nuance when it comes to combating terror.

And no nuance when it comes to speaking out against Hamas. We should be unified against that. We should be unified to get our American hostages home. Look, that's great, but it doesn't happen in the environment we're in. To be clear, part of the anti-McGill, anti-Claudine Gay movement may have had nothing to do with your own concerns about anti-Semitism and a bad performance in front of Congress.

It's a useful cudgel by conservatives like Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who was leading that hearing, and Christopher Ruffo. There's now a Republican-led House committee investigation into Penn, Harvard, and MIT. Are you concerned about it at all, that issue is being politicized for other means, using anti-Semitism as the excuse for doing so? Are you worried in any way about this? Yeah, I think, look, we know that anti-Semitism is on the rise. All the data has—

has bared that out. It should not be used as a political football to prove political points. Similarly, we shouldn't use racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, you name it, as a sort of a political tool. I think we have to be unified against all of that and we should all come together in unity against that. I think those who are trying to seek to score political points on the back of pain in the African-American community, Jewish community, Muslim community,

They are doing a disservice to our nation, and they're not helping us advance the ball, and they're not helping us secure real freedom for all Americans. So in that regard, I mean, when you're taking these moral stances, I want to finish up my last questions about your future. Are you worried about losing the college vote in this particular case when it comes to Penn? Sure.

Yeah, I really don't go through that type of calculus in my mind, Karen. By the way, I've spent time not only at Penn talking to students, but in other college campuses, talking to students both before October 7th and post-October 7th. I think if you do a job as serious as being governor of

a massive, wonderful, complex, challenging state like Pennsylvania. If you're always thinking about the politics of this, you're doing a disservice to the people you take an oath of office to represent. So I really don't sort of think through that calculus. I try and do what's right. I recognize that any action I take, there's going to be folks who agree with me and folks who disagree with me, and that's okay. The bottom line here is I try and do what's right and lead with integrity. You're just there to build highways at record speed, right? Is that correct? No, I'm

even ask about that. I'm not going to. Well done, though. So it was very good. Politically, it was good. It worked well on social media. In any case, a poll in December 2023 showed Donald Trump losing by a considerable margin in a hypothetical matchup with you. You're being touted as a rising star in the Democratic Party, and there's quite a few of them all over the place, whether it's Governor Whitmer or Governor Newsom or Governor Pritzker, all good governors and great governors. I don't think he's going to run, though. Great governors.

Back in 2022, Politico said you could be our first Jewish president. Thoughts on that? Are you looking at a 2028 run? What would swing it for you?

No, I mean, look, it's obviously humbling when folks say that. It's very kind. They haven't met the first lady of Pennsylvania, the love of my life since the ninth grade. She's ultimately the one that makes these decisions in our family. But the reality is I don't think about that stuff in the future. I focus on the job I'm doing here. I think if you do these jobs...

well, then you can have thoughts about politics later. But that really is not something that enters into the conversation here when we're doing our work for the good people of Pennsylvania. Not late at night? No.

No, I mean, look, Kara, I mean, you can't escape it, right? When folks say this stuff to you, when they encourage you or they applaud the job you're doing and think you could maybe do something else, that's humbling. That's very kind. That's wonderful. But you can't get caught up in those politics. You can't be thinking all these years ahead. You got to focus on the task at hand. So yes, do I hear the noise? Do I hear the commentary? Do I hear the positive reaction? Of

Of course I do. And I'm grateful for that. I'm grateful people are paying attention to the work we're doing here in Pennsylvania. But I really don't think about the politics of the future that way. What would be, if you were president, what would be, what would your administration, what would be the word if you had to describe it?

Do you ran for president? Look, I always want to lead the way we lead here in Pennsylvania, which is to focus every single day on three letters. GSD, get shit done. Oh, okay. Put points on the board. That's a poster. Yeah, I mean, it's literally- It's not quite like hope, but I like it.

No, but I mean, and anybody who knows me here knows I'm competitive as hell. We always want to win. We always want to put points on the board and we want to get stuff done. I think part of the reason why folks are so frustrated about politics, and I think this is true with people on the left and the right. This may be one of the unifying factors

forces here is they feel like stuff doesn't get done, that problems don't get solved. And so you peppered me with questions where you'd say, are you worried that if you believe this, you might upset someone else here? The reason I don't feel that way is because I feel like what folks really want me to do in this job is get shit done for them, solve problems.

Take meaningful action. And I think that is what we need more of across this country. And I think that's going to restore people's hope. And that's going to restore people's faith in our institutions and our government. I'm someone who believes government can be a force for positive good in people's lives. And I think those leading government who have that GSD attitude are going to continue to make great strides in their states and their communities. I can see the posters now. It's a little Trumpy in a good way.

I guess. I guess. I don't know what to say. But so speaking of GSD, what are you going to do about the Eagles? Oh, man, Cara. What a total and complete collapse at the end of the year. It was beyond mind-boggling. I mean—

Look, we looked a little bit old on defense. Somehow we forgot how to make tackles. Jalen Hurts, our quarterback, got out of sync with his receivers. They got some work to do in the offseason there. I'm a diehard sports fan. Do you need to get Taylor Swift to date someone there or what? What has to happen? Let me tell you. I don't know. I'm a way bigger fan of Jason Kelsey than I am Travis Kelsey, of course. Taylor, by the way, Taylor can do whatever the hell she wants. And a Pennsylvania native. Uh-huh.

which we're very, very proud of here. Taylor gets to do whatever she wants. Yeah, okay. But just so you know, I don't know anything about football at all whatsoever. Nothing. I think they got a lot of work to do, both on the coaching staff. It's clear the offensive coordinator and some of the folks calling the plays, they just were not getting it done. We need a stronger defense. I mean, even before we collapsed at the end of the year, our defense was bottom of the pack. We got to get better. But

I'm hopeful for my Sixers. Steelers, no love for the Steelers. I don't know about your Golden State Warriors.

I do love the Steelers. But listen, here in Pennsylvania, right, you cannot bullshit your way through sports. You can't pretend, oh, no, I'm for everybody. Now, the truth is I go to Steelers games. I cheer for the Steelers when they're not playing the Eagles. But I'm an Eagles fan. And you can't lie about that. You can't BS your way through sports. My primary sport is basketball. I'm a big hoops guy. And I think the Sixers are going to go deep this year. One very last question. Wawa or? Yeah. Yeah, Wawa.

Yeah, you're going to try and get me to commit Wawa sheets. I'm a Wawa guy. So anybody watching this, anybody listening to your pod who's a Steelers fan is mad at me. Now you got the sheets people mad at me. I get it. But here's the thing. They're actually both really good. And with the amount of travel I do around the state, I eat a lot of sheets, but I'm a Wawa guy. Me too. Me too. I'm a Wawa person. Anyway, in any case, thank you so much. It's been a delightful interview. And we're going to see a lot more from you, I'm guessing. Thank you, Kara.

On with Kara Swisher is produced by Naeem Araza, Christian Castro-Rossell, Kateri Yochum, Megan Cunane, and Megan Burney. Special thanks to Mary Mathis, Kate Gallagher, and Andrea Lopez Cruzado. Our engineers are Fernando Arruda and Rick Kwan. Our theme music is by Trackademics.

If you're already following the show, you have a GSD attitude. If not, you're an Eagles fan. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back on Monday with more.