The Daily - 'The Interview': How Tragedy, Wealth and Trump Shaped JB Pritzker

Episode Date: March 14, 2026

The governor of Illinois and Trump antagonist has become a national figure for Democrats. Where will that lead? Thoughts? Email us at [e-mail] Watch our show on YouTube: youtube.com/@TheInterviewPodcast For transcripts and more, visit: nytimes.com/theinterview Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

From the New York Times, this is the interview. I'm Lulu Garcia-Nivarro. J.B. Pritzker has served as Illinois governor since 2019, and he's now running for a rare third term. During his time in office, Pritzker has become one of President Trump's main antagonists. And for that reason, among others, many see him as a strong contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, even if he's not saying that yet.

A former businessman from one of America's wealthiest and most influential families, being a progressive billionaire, is central to J.B. Pritzker's political brand. But as anti-billionaire sentiment grows on the left, and not only on the left, so does a potential source of tension with voters. I first sat down with Pritzker at the governor's mansion in Springfield, Illinois, earlier this month, as America's war in Iran continued to escalate and on the heels of the first midterm primaries. I wanted to discuss both, but also power, wealth, and where he sees his party going.

Here's my conversation with Governor J.B. Pritzker. Governor Pritzker, thank you so much for joining us. I'm really excited to have you on the interview. Great to be with you, Lulu. It's a bit of a gray day here in Springfield, Illinois, but we are at the governor's mansion, which is really impressive, very beautiful, lots of Abraham Lincoln. In fact, there's a bust over there of Abraham Lincoln. Does it feel weird to have him sort of looming over you sometimes?

No, it's really wonderful, actually. I mean, to think about, you know, this is the state that produced the greatest president that we've ever had. And a state that's produced other great presidents, too, like Barack Obama and Ulysses S. Grant and Ronald Reagan. So, you know, we're proud. He's forgotten that he was born here. Ronald Reagan. Yeah. It always seems such a product of California.

Yeah, yeah. You know, there's a lot going on in the world, a lot going on in your state. But I want to start with more of a philosophical question. When we look at this moment and this era, which is so dominated, obviously, by the president, I've been really thinking about how he wields executive power. And I'm wondering what you think the lesson for Democrats is from President Trump and how he has wielded power to get what he wants? I think it's a lesson for everyone that gets elected to office in an executive post.

I think that what President Trump has done is, I think, operate like the president of a banana republic or as if he were an authoritarian. That is, now he's got power. he's going to vanquish his enemies and rule in favor of the people who will enrich him. And I think that the lesson is for the country, that this is a dangerous road that we've gone down, putting someone like that in public office. We need to stand up against corruption. We need to stand up and make sure that whoever it is that gets elected is someone who's good and decent and kind.

I think kindness is something that's been missing in our politics. So you could say that's a lesson for Democrats. I think it's a lesson for all elected officials. I mean, you know, you're sort of talking about overreach and ruling like an authoritarian, which is one version of looking at that. Another version, though, I think, is how he's really been able to push through an aggressive agenda, you know, the shock and awe theory of governance, if you will. I've heard so many voters complain,

and I'm sure you've heard this too, about incrementalism, about all the promises that get made when you're running for office and then feeling like... I complain about it too. Everything gets stymied once someone gets into office. And I'm wondering if there are lessons to be taken

from the frustration of voters and the way that he's managed to do it. Yeah. Let me begin by saying that I ran on an agenda as governor. I ran on a very bold agenda, and I swiftly enacted that agenda. My first year in office really accomplished most of what I ran on, which were big things. I think that is the way to operate. There's no doubt.

And that we as Democrats, if there's a lesson, it's that there should be a project 29 for Democrats. Now, remember, though, that Project 2025 also included taking away people's rights and freedoms. It included tearing down the safety net that holds up our working families and that stands up for the most vulnerable in our society. So there are things about the agenda that I think are...

That obviously you don't agree with. Not just that. I think they're reprehensible and they're anti-democratic. But yes, the speed of the agenda and it's not shock and awe so much as run on the agenda when you run and win on an agenda, you can accomplish that agenda and need to do it as soon as possible.

The problem is Donald Trump would say things and now he's doing things that are very different. Remember, he said, we're not going to cut Medicaid. That's precisely what he's done. What does a project 2029 agenda look like for you? I don't think you can speak of it in shorthand, but I'll just say a couple of things

that I think are absolutely necessary. One is we've got to, restore the rule of law. And that means holding people accountable who've broken the law. And talking about in this administration, when we get a new one, the people in this administration who broken the law. And federal agents who broken the law need to be held accountable. And that means criminally prosecuted. Criminally prosecuted, civilly prosecuted, whatever it is that we can do, right? It may be that you can't criminally prosecute somebody, but that you can go after them civilly. So that's one thing.

But a second thing, just thinking about people's everyday lives, right? I mean, just lifting people up and making things more affordable in the world. How about finally, finally, we Democrats get to universal health care? Obamacare was terrific and it advanced the cause. But we still have a whole lot of people that don't have coverage. And now, of course, it's being taken away from a lot of people. So that's part of the agenda, universal health care. Another part of the agenda is we've got to raise the minimum wage in this country.

You know, the minimum wage is $7.25. It's about $14,000 a year. If you have one full-time job, you can't survive on 14. It's a single person. There's no place in the country. And even if you hold two minimum wage jobs, $28,000 a year, you can't raise a family on that. Maybe you could survive alone on that. So why are we allowing people to live at $7.25?

By the way, the tipped wage in this country is about $2.20 an hour. Ridiculous. We need to raise wages in this country and start with the minimum wage. So I give that as an example because healthcare and people earning enough to live on, those seem like basic fundamentals of who we are as Democrats. That ought to be right at the top of the agenda. Why do you think there hasn't been a project 2029 by the Democrats and the Democrats and their think tank allies, which is actually how Project 2025, came about from the right.

It was a concerted effort from many different groups to sort of enact it. It's a great question. And you talked about incrementalism earlier. I do think that people feel like, you know, well, we need the public to come along on every issue. And so let's play them out over several years so that we can finally get consensus and so on. It's true. But some of these issues have been around for an awful long. time. And I guarantee you that if you polled the American public about raising the minimum wage, 80%, including a majority of Republicans, would say it's time to raise the minimum wage. So I don't

think we need to be incrementalist about some things that I think are universally understood. So as we're speaking, we have just had our first insight into the feeling of the voting public, because we've had sort of our first primaries for the midterms. And in particular, of course, the Texas Senate primary is being looked at very closely on both the left and the right. James Tala Rico defeated Jasmine Crockett. And that race was seen of something of a bellwether for the kind of approach that works best for Democrats. And I'm just wondering what your takeaways from that were. If you look across the last five or so elections, if you include Spanberger's election in Virginia and Mikey Sherrill's election in New Jersey and Mamdani's election in New York City.

And as you said, the primary in Texas, as well as the election or nomination of Roy Cooper in North Carolina. They've run on an affordability agenda. They've run on making sure that working people understand, we demonstrate. are the ones who are fighting for them, not the other guys. Now, I know that what you're asking me is, oh, the split in the, is there a split in the Democratic Party in one side or another, you know, has now one. But the truth is that both of these candidates, what they exhibited, I'm talking about Texas now, what they exhibited was the ability to incite and excite particularly young people who often are left out of politics because historically haven't voted in large numbers.

but these are the folks who are taking over the country over time. And sometimes young people are the ones who come up with the best ideas and are the ones who want us to have a bold agenda. And so you didn't hear either one of those candidates speaking in incrementalist kind of terminology, right? They were out there talking about transformative change. But there's another thing that people are inferring from that, which is there were two different candidates with very different styles.

And Jasmine Crockett, obviously, has positioned herself as a fighter against Trump in particular. And James Tala Rico has taken a completely sort of different tact. And I am sort of wondering about that because you have adopted a very combative position when in regards to President Trump in regards to defending your state. And when you look at the lesson that some are drawing from Tala Rico, some would say, Maybe there's another way to do this where you can stand for what you believe in, but you don't have to adopt the same sort of public combativeness that President Trump adopts. I can tell you this, that when you've got somebody who's taking people's rights away and the president today, is taking people's rights away, when he's attacking people's freedoms, when he's not following the law,

when he's corrupt and enriching himself. I mean, moms are being shot in the face. I don't know how on earth you can stand up about Donald Trump and say, well, let's work with him. He's not, you can't work with him. And he's got an entire history, Lulu, of not living up to his promises. He can't be trusted. I'm talking about when he was in business. You shake hands with him on something or sign a contract.

He'd break it and sue you, even though he was in the wrong. In politics, every time, you know, someone, he'd make friends with that. And then all of a sudden, you know, he's. turned on you. That happens, I mean, has happened repeatedly. I mean, his first term, his second term, he's not a loyal person. He expects loyalty to him, but he's not loyal back. Well, you say that you can't work with Donald Trump, but I look at Mayor Mom Dani of New York, who, you know, you mentioned and has been one of the bright lights for Democrats at the moment. And, you know, he's tried to woo him. He's tried to work with him where he can. Because of, as we've seen,

the federal government, you know, wields enormous power. And it's hard to do things without it. So what do you think about that way of doing things? Remember, I've been in office now for seven years. I was in office when Donald Trump was president the first time. When the pandemic hit, I called the president and asked for help, told him we needed ventilators, we needed masks, and that he should invoke the Defense Production Act,

but that we absolutely immediately needed to save him. people's lives and needed the federal government. He promised to do that and didn't deliver. Now, this is in the most dire of circumstances. You would think that the federal government under Donald Trump, under anybody, would understand that people are dying and the federal government can help. They need to help. Look what he's done to FEMA, the federal emergency management agency, which normally steps in when there are disasters. He's ripped it apart. You can't get help from the federal government anymore. We've seen that. He's denied that when we've had floods and other problems here in Illinois.

You seem to be implying that Mayor Mom Dani is a neophy and doesn't have the experience. I'm not taking anything away from him. I understand why you try. I'm just saying I have my own experiences. And by the way, if you look at his entire history, Donald Trump's entire history, it's breaking promises with people. And so I'm just saying maybe our different circumstances are leading us to different conclusions. One last question on sort of the theory of power.

for Democrats. Obviously, President Trump has amassed an enormous amount of executive power during this administration. Do you think Democrats, should they retake the presidency, that they should keep that executive power in order to enact the changes that they want? I mean, should the executive remain as powerful as it is? It's a great question. And I will say that the Constitution confers a lot of power on the executive already. then what happened is the first and frankly the worst thing that has happened is the Supreme Court essentially said the president is immune entirely immune from anything. Literally what they've said is if the president decides to shoot somebody, he said this himself when he was running. Now the

Supreme Court said, yeah, that's fine. He could shoot somebody and he's immune. Not quite, but almost. Okay, but that's the point is that, I mean, it is extreme what the Supreme Court has conferred the power that they've conferred on him. And he's grabbed power. If he's doing it while he's executing his office, not because he wants to go and shoot someone. I understand that. I'm not accusing him of actually committing murder. Right.

But I do think that Democrats should look for ways to make sure that the shape and size of the executive in the United States is as the founders intended it and not as this Supreme Court has now made it. never known a politician to limit their own power. I hear what you're saying, but I think that that is why character matters. I think that's going to really matter in 2028. Who is the person or who are the people that are being elevated to the nominees of their party? And are they people who will actually stand up for the tradition of democracy and a republic, if we can keep it?

Look, everybody wants, you know, let's have something happen right now today. It's unfortunate democracy doesn't generally. operate that way authoritarian's can. But democracy is a little bit slower than that. I do believe that we can operate in a much more

efficient fashion and effectuate the policies that we care about in a democratic fashion, but not by taking away people's rights, not by ignoring the Constitution of the law. That's what Donald Trump thinks.

He thinks if you ignore the Constitution of the law, well, gee, we can move a lot faster. We'd all like to move faster to get things done. I don't agree with his aims. But I also very much believe that if you want this country's form of government to survive, that we need to restore

some semblance of the democracy that we knew before Donald Trump came in office. I'd like to talk about how you became you. You suffered a lot of tragedy very young. Your father, Donald, died at the age of 39 of a heart attack when you were around seven years old. It stuck in my mind. My father died also very young at the age of. of 39 when I was five. What impact did that have on you personally? I mean, do you remember that age and what happened then? I do. I mean, I was seven. That's obviously young and, you know, you have limited memories, but of course, I remember, I remember losing my father. I remember what it felt like. My mother and father were actually out of town. They were very far away

from us, right, Hawaii. And so my mother called her friends and said, I need you to go to our house and make sure that our kids aren't watching TV. I don't want them to find out anywhere else except from me. So I need time to get back. And, of course, she had to bring my father's body back.

And so her friends who were so important in our lives, you know, came and like a range. to take us out for the day, and we went to a place called Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, and we did some, it seemed like just a fun day away. You know, we knew our parents were out of town, and here were these nice people taking us to a fun place.

So it allowed my mother to get back, and I remember her coming back into our house and taking us into her, their bedroom, and sitting us down and telling us what happened. You know, and I think back on it now as an adult with children, and I think how hard that must have been for her. Like I know how hard it was for me to hear it. But I can think back now and say,

how hard must that have been to tell your children that they've lost their father? People do it every day, unfortunately. But I admire, think about a lot of things about my mother, and I admire her so much, but I think of that moment, how hard was that for her? She just lost the love of her life. And a whole lot of other things. She was his partner, really, in building the business.

You know, her life is very much built around them as a couple, right? And all of a sudden, she's alone with three young children. So I remember all of that. And I subsequently talked to their friends as an adult. I went back and found many of their friends who were, you know, in their 70s or 80s when I did talk to them about it. And they remember distinctly because my father was the youngest friend of theirs that had ever died, like their first friend that had died. And they remember how profound it was for them because he was also like the life of the party. You know, he was the person when they would all get together that kind of the whole room kind of leaned toward my father when he would enter a room because he was a big, gregarious personality and a nice person.

person and held the tension of people. And so it's something I think a lot of people were profoundly impacted by. Remember, though, in addition to that, after that, my mother who was an alcoholic, you know, she, you know, all the challenges you can imagine for someone who's now become a widow with three young children and then add on to that a disease that is so hard to overcome. Most people don't. Many people don't. And you had to take care of her. And, and, as with your siblings, I mean, it became, you know, she was sort of crippled by the loss. When she was drinking and she was also, you know, she found, you know, she went to Alcoholics Anonymous. She checked herself in, uh, over time, you know, to, to a place that could help her.

Uh, and so she tried really hard. And she was sober. It wasn't like she was drunk all the time, but she, she was sober a lot. And, um, and she was one of the smartest people that I've ever met. I don't think that's just the view of a seven-year-old or a 10-year-old or, you know, 15-year-old. And she was special. And yet she was just, I mean, she had to overcome this disease. And I remember one day she sat us down. This is, I don't know, when I was eight or nine, she sat us down. She said, I want you to know that sometimes it probably feels to you like I don't love you because I'm not being a mother to you that I want to be.

but I want you to understand this is a disease. I have a disease and I'm trying very hard to overcome it. And I'm going to overcome it, she would say. And she actually gave us a book in that one moment that I can remember. You know, she gave us a book to read about alcoholism, about the struggle that people have to overcome this disease and that it is a disease. But unfortunately, she was never able to overcome it, and it overcame her and took her life.

Yeah, and you became an orphan at 17, I think. Yeah. I mean, that's an extraordinary, you know, series of losses. How would you say that shaped you? You know, I don't want to aggrandize it or minimize it and just say that a whole lot of people go through tragedy and experience it differently and come out of it differently. Seeing both parents is a particularly difficult one for a child.

Yes, and a lot of the outcome has to do with how old were you when those things happened. Were there people around you other than them who cared about you and took care of you and made sure that you weren't going to fall off the edge of the earth? And who were those people for you? Well, my brother and sister and I were very close, and I was lucky I had to. two older siblings. So that was helpful for me. I think they would say also, as I would, that there were my parents' friends who cared deeply about us, and we had a broader family who really, you know, put their arms all the way around us and made sure that we were going to be

okay. And so I just feel lucky because a whole lot of people, as you know, don't have resources, don't have a family that would step in and care for them and don't have a large group of friends who can do what their friends did. And so for me anyway, I mean, there are a lot of lessons. I think you learn compassion going through that for other people because you've been through it yourself. And I think it's important to, those are lessons that I carry with me all the time. You know, my mother was really, she was more than just a story about someone who tragically died of alcoholism, right? She was. She was an activist. She was an LGBTQ and abortion rights activist.

You credit who with making you a Democrat. Really, truly. And my father was, too. He was a Democrat. But my, you know, my mother, yeah, she, I don't know if she, maybe, we were Democrats for sure. You grow up in a home where you, you know, your mother is an activist for civil rights and human rights. And where we were licking envelopes and stamps and stuffing envelopes, you know, for candidates. That's how you got your message out back then before the Internet. I went to marches with my mother. So, yeah, she was a special person. She left a legacy, in my view, for all three of us.

My sister, you know, has done public service. My brother, he hasn't served in public office, but he has done public service. I think all of us feel like we have a whole legacy of public service before my mother. I might have my father was in the Navy. I mean, I think all of us feel a kind of a dedication to serving the public. So the experiences that I had when I was young that shaped me, I think about thinking. about the challenges that other people go through, were also intermixed with the idea that maybe I could do something about it.

Your great-grandfather, the patriarch of the Pritzker clan, came to the United States in the late 1800s, fleeing the Jewish pogroms in Ukraine, and he became incredibly successful. And, of course, your family became one of the wealthiest in America, running a hotel business. I mean, it is one of the best-known hotel... hotel companies in the United States.

Lou, can I interrupt you just for a moment just to say it was a motel business. I mean, people think these things just come from now. You know, small business people like people who start something. My father and his brother built something that nobody thought would be successful. And it was. It was an atrium lobby hotel, the first one in the United States. And it was a hugely successful hotel. It was the start of something big.

I only mention that because I think we overlook kind of how hard. it is to build something like that from from scratch yeah no i mean extraordinary and he helped build you know the hyatt hotel group um you are uncomfortable talking about your family's wealth is that a statement it's a statement and a question i guess so um i'm not i'm proud i really am proud i'm also feel incredibly lucky i'm not uncomfortable i'm just uncomfortable with the assumptions that people make about you and so i you know i just i know how love you I was and am. So I think that that obviously was part of what shaped me. I also think, though, that the values that my parents taught me about, you know, about social justice and compassion.

I think those are all things that, whether you're wealthy or you're poor or your middle class, like those values that you grow up with are who you are. And it doesn't matter how much money you have. If you have resources, you can maybe do more to carry out those values. you know, for other people, perhaps. But that's how I think about it. And I know that when I ran for governor, for example, in 2017, that, you know, Donald Trump was president of the United States. And here comes a wealthy guy running as a Democrat for governor. So I get it.

I understand people had that in their heads. But again, I had to go everywhere in the state and talk to everybody so people could understand. and that, you know, that it's where your heart is, it's what your values are that matters, not how much you have or how little you have. Fair. How much are you worth? You know, you can read magazines

that will estimate what I'm worth. So, you know, we, I obviously have had investments. It's all in a blind trust now. I couldn't tell you what it's worth. Hmm. I ask because I'm wondering how much financial transparency do you think politicians owe voters? Oh, well, I fill out a statement of economic interest every year and publish it.

And so, you know, I think there ought to be transparency. I think one of the things that's not transparent that I see every day in this administration is Donald Trump is literally enriching himself and his children and his family. I think he is using Vladimir Putin as a model. And, you know, Vladimir Putin is purported to be one of the, if not the, well. wealthiest person in the world, and he's done that in a corrupt fashion running, you know, Russia. And I believe that's what Donald Trump is hoping to do as president of the United States. You can see it every day. The reason I want to stay with this, and, you know, Donald Trump is obviously one example,

but there is a real discomfort at the moment with wealth and politics. I understand. And I'm just wondering how you view that. because you've used a lot of your own money to finance your own campaigns to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. A lot of people might say that's just not fair. I understand, but I will also tell you

that what people know about me is that there's no special interest that could buy me or tell me what to do. That even the lobbyists are a bit confused. You know, they come to Springfield, Illinois, and they know who they can go see because they can demand entry to people's offices

because their allies or they themselves have given money. But they, you know, approach my office understanding that if I want to talk to them, it's because I'm interested in their issue. Either I agree with them or I disagree with them, but we're going to have a debate

or we're going to work together on something, not because they gave money to me, but because I actually believe in the cause. Would you make of the moniker of sort of the billionaire class that has become very popular, especially on the left. I mean, do you think all billionaires

should be lumped together? I think that it's funny to me, again, you ask the question up front about, you know, I seem to be sensitive about wealth. And it's in part because of like a question like the one you just asked. I know that there are people

who just want to lump everybody who is wealthy together and say that they are evil or they're fighting against them. And all I can say is that's not true of me. And it's not true of a number of people that I know. And if you're looking for percentages, I don't know. Yeah. Do you think the Democratic Party then needs to have a more nuanced view on this?

Because it seems like, you know, that narrative has really taken over lately. I think that the nuance here is about, again, separating the question of how much you have from who you really are. And again, I know that when I got elected, I needed to prove to people that I was actually on their side. You know, that it's one thing to run and have an agenda. It's another thing to effectuate that agenda, raising the minimum wage of $15 from $8,025 in my state, making sure that we actually were enacting policies that were held. helping working people and not about aggrandizing or building up the wealth of the wealthiest people in our state. Those are things that, you know, I've got a real record.

Well, let me ask you a policy question because obviously in California there's a big debate now over a proposed billionaire tax that's been very divisive, needless to say. There's a push in your state to have a similar move. You've said it's not a priority. what do you say to people who might think that a billionaire tax is a good thing? I mean, do you think that that is something that is, I mean, it seems like a good sort of idea in principle, but obviously there's a lot of nuance to it. There is a lot of nuance. But let me start with just to correct something you said.

When you said it's not a priority, that's not accurate. As you know, I ran on it when I ran. then I actually got the legislature to go along. I'm talking about a graduated income tax. Right, which taxes wealthy people at a higher rate than a tax is everyday working people. And what California's proposing is a flat tax on billionaires. Right. But again, it would be a higher tax on income than people who are working every day. So I want to just correct you to make sure that that listeners and you understand that I have been fighting for a more fair tax system for a long time. time. Now you want to talk about the nuance, and I agree there's nuance in all of it. But I am in favor.

I prioritize. I believe that we ought to tax, you know, even Warren Buffett will say that too, you know, that we ought to tax him more than we tax somebody who's a secretary in his business. And he's right. And we have a graduate income tax, by the way, at the federal level. Here in Illinois, we have a flat income tax. That doesn't seem fair to me. Oh, by the way, do you know who instituted the first graduate income tax for the United States, Abraham Lincoln, just to remind you where you are. So, but there are nuances in this way. You know, people also are thinking, well, let's try to add up what somebody's worth and will just take X percent of their assets. That's part of what some people think is a wealth tax. And that is, in fact, what I think they're

trying to do in California. The problem with that, it's a practical question. The problem with that is there are a whole lot of assets that are held privately that are not valued. You know, the way you value something is what is the fair market value. And you can determine that easily on the stock market. That's easy because you can see every day what a share is worth and add up how many shares somebody has and say that's their wealth. But you can't do that if you own a home. I don't know what your home is worth today. And forget about a home. If you own some train tracks. People own train tracks and rent them out, you know, rent that to the rail railier companies. It's just a practical question. And I do think the fair way to do this is to say

wealthy people should pay a higher tax on their incomes. We could debate, by the way, capital gains income versus ordinary income. That's another question. Should capital gains be taxed at a different rate than ordinary income. And again, nuance is very important. Here's the most important principle. We need to pay for the government that we need. Okay. So how we do that is what you're asking, what other people are asking. How are you going to pay for the government that we need? And also make a system where there isn't such income inequality, where the money that certain groups have and the influence that they wield on all different parts of our life, I mean, aren't as don't have such an impact. That is what I hear from a lot of voters. And that's why the method is important, right?

That is that someone who is making $5 million a year should pay a higher percentage of their income than someone who is making $50,000 a year. Here in Illinois, I've cut taxes for people who are making $50, $60, $70, $90,000 a year with an earned income tax credit increased with a child tax credit. I increased the child tax rate after I implemented the first one that's ever existed in Illinois, because we do want to make it easier for working families to make sure that we're paying for the things that we need and we're supporting people in a way that they never ever fall through what should be a strong floor or a safety net that no one should ever fall through. I do think that that's fair. And so that is what I mean when I am saying wealthy people should pay a fairer share, a more fair share.

than they are paying now. You know, you've hit something that is, for me, like, fascinating, which is the fundamental divide about how you pay for the things that you need between Republicans and Democrats, right? But as you know, the biggest knock Republicans make on Democratic-run states is that they are expensive and that they're economically stagnant. And obviously, Illinois is not immune to those national challenges that you're seeing in terms of affordability, et cetera.

cost of living here is challenging. A lot of young families have left the state recently to places that aren't as expensive. And I'm just wondering when you think about working families and the challenges that a state like Illinois faces, what is your sort of answer to that criticism that basically Democratic-run states aren't where we're seeing the growth in this country? the moment. You've asked a easy question with a lot of complex answers that you deserve. Let me start with this. I inherited when I became governor, a state that had been run by a Republican governor who had devastated our fiscal situation, had stagnated the state, and left us in a terrible position. I had to rebuild after he left office. We had suffered eight credit down. We had suffered eight

credit downgrades. We had suffered no budget for two years. He left $17 billion of unpaid overdue bills. So talk about irresponsibility. Republicans can be very irresponsible too. And the Republican running our state was. I had to turn all of that around and we've made a whole lot of progress. So I don't doubt what you're suggesting that we have a long road to travel in Illinois. But it's about making progress and working toward fighting for the people who really need government. Now, and Democrats in Democratic states, like me anyway, understand you've got to grow the economy and you want to make sure people have health care and the basic needs like really good education. We've invested in those things. Look at the states around us. They have not. And

And the result is you can't get the quality of health care in some of the Republican states that surround me that you can in the state of Illinois. But this is exactly the point. And I'm not saying it's an easy one. This isn't a gotcha. I'm actually just very animated by this because you can see, the problem here is you have a great school system. You have health care.

But you need higher taxes to pay for that. And it seems like one of those fundamental issues because if people feel squeezed by the cost of living and by taxes, they're going to move to places that they can afford. And then it doesn't help you with the education and the health care. So it just seems like a hard problem to solve. But people that have moved to a place like Florida are moving back. I mean, here's the problem that, first of all, 4.95% is our income tax rate here. So. Yeah, but property taxes, I think you're number one in the country.

Yes, but remember, what caused that was not investing in our public schools. that is what caused it. Property taxes are charged at the local level. And when you don't invest in public schools from the state level, which is what happened. Illinois, when I took over, Illinois was the worst state in the country for funding education from a state level. The result is if you want a good school locally, you've got to raise local property taxes. So how do you keep a young family from not moving to Indiana, for example, even though the public schools here are better, even though, because you're seeing that happen. Jobs and economic growth and making sure that they have a park that they can go to locally. States are funding. that. Our state is funding that, making sure they have good health care available to them. You can't get those things in Indiana. You can't get those things in Republican-run states. You just can't. We actually believe in sort of quality of life is something very important for us to be investing in. And so that's what we're doing. And we're doing it in a very difficult fiscal situation, now made harder by the Republicans who are imposing on Republican states and Democratic states, very difficult circumstances where you can't get.

food assistance when you need it, and you can't get health care when you need it, and they're raising the cost of health care for working poor people. These are working people that they're raising the costs on. There are reasons why people move to Illinois. There are reasons why the trend moves in our direction, and indeed, our population is increasing in Illinois now. One of, I think, the more interesting proposals that you've had is social media tax. I'm very interested in this. Can you explain how that would work on what it is? Yes, it's a fee. And the fee is on a per-user basis for the largest social media companies.

And the idea- So it's a tax paid by the social media companies themselves. Yeah, yeah. It's a fee paid by them. Look, here's what's happening. Social media companies are benefiting from the 13 million people that live in the state of Illinois, but they're giving nothing back to us. They don't benefit the state in any way, the people of Illinois in any way.

And their algorithms are truly causing mental health. health challenges, education challenges, disinformation that we end up having to deal with the problems of. I think they should have to help pay for that. And so that's all. It's $200 million. That's not much in a $56 billion budget. I think they should pay into our education system to help us deal with the problems they're causing. And do you think that it'll pass is what I was going to? I mean, we have four and a half months of a legislative session in which we're going to talk about that with the legislature. I proposed it as part of my budget and as part of my state of the state address. I think it's been well received. People understand the damage that's being done by social media

and believe that this is one way in which we might be able to pay for the rectifying the damage that's being done. You know, Governor Pritzker, along the same lines, as I was flying in here, I read about another huge layoff in corporate America to do with AI. And we're seeing that, you know, specifically among white-collar workers as the first wave. How worried are you about the effect of AI and the labor market in particular? And are politicians doing enough to sort of prepare the American people for what seems to be happening? Very worried and no to answer both of your questions. Look, AI is going to happen.

There's no stopping it. We're not going to become Luddites and decide we're not doing AI in the United States while everybody else around the world is doing it. It's going to happen. The question is, first, are there ethical guidelines and guideposts? You know, I think a company like Anthropic is demonstrating that you can have those and still have very successful AI for everybody to use. That's one part of it.

And you're speaking, of course, of their recent decision not to do business with the Department of Defense. Or at least to leave the guidelines in place. You know, it's not that they don't want to do business. And they, in fact, we're doing businesses just all of a sudden. And once again, the Trump administration comes up with something new to throw out there to cause problems. But AI is going to impact employment. There's no doubt it's already happening.

And what we need to be doing as Democrats, frankly, as public officials on both sides, is addressing what is our answer to if you go to college and you graduate with a marketing degree and now the marketing jobs are not there or an accounting. degree or become a lawyer and now you can't become an associate at a law firm because they don't need as many. What is our answer to that short and long term? And I do not believe that we have addressed that much at all as a country. And I think Donald Trump is letting it all run rampant without any solutions to any of that because he thinks he'll be out of office before it has real effect on people. So I'm not going to put out here what I think the policies ought to be for the next few years.

beyond on AI, except to say to you that if we are not putting forward a serious agenda as Democrats for job creation in jobs that will not be destroyed by AI, and let's just give examples of the trades. Those are examples of every, you know, AI can't solve your plumbing, your construction problems, you know, AI. And thank God, interviewing. Yeah, that's true. Although, Or answering those interviews. So I do think, though, that if we're not addressing those, and Republicans have no answers, at least Democrats are beginning to talk about, you know, what some of those solutions are. It's hard to tell an office worker to become a plumber.

I agree. And I'm not so, but we are talking about truly. It's like we used to tell coal miners that they had to code, and now we're telling coders that they have to be coal miners. 100%. The paradigm shift is massive. This is one of the issues. of our lifetimes. What are the degrees that we should be encouraging young people to go get?

Should we push people more into vocational careers? Should we push people more into getting a college degree? Some want to get a college degree and don't. I've been expanding vocational training in my state. I think that these are the broad-brushed questions that are the questions of our day. They weren't addressed by Joe Barber. Biden. They weren't addressed in Trump's first term. They weren't addressed during Obama's term.

I don't think people could project forward enough to understand what it's happening now. So the crisis is upon us and coming upon us. And so now is the time to start addressing it. Governor Prisker, thank you so much for talking with me today. Thanks, Lulu. Good to talk to you. Okay, now we're doing some like another segment. Is that the deal? Not now. Not now. So just because next week go for Zoom and it'll be more on sort of news of the day. I want to talk about Iran and other things. I like to say when people ask me about foreign policy that my foreign policy is, should we build a wall to keep the Hoosiers out?

Fair. After the break, I speak with the governor again about the war in Iran. It seems like if you get into a conflict and don't know how it's supposed to end, that can turn into easily into a forever war. Hi, Lulu. Can you hear me? I can hear you great. Nice to see you. Nice to see you too.

You're in Chicago? I am. I'm in my office in Chicago. Well, I'm nearby my office in Chicago anyway. Fair enough. So, Governor, I want to ask you about the current conflict in the Middle East because you have positioned yourself as a leader in the National Democratic Party. And as we speak, we're in the second week of a war with Iran.

And I'm just wondering how you think it's going. Well, my observation is that President Trump got us into this war without clear objectives. And the result of that is that no one knows really where we're supposed to be going. So although President Trump has talked about trying to avoid forever wars, it's, seems like if you get into a conflict and don't know how it's supposed to end, that can turn into easily into a forever war. And so when you're then spending billions of dollars to get into a conflict where we were, you know, not drawn into it for any reason other than Donald Trump's choice, you have to wonder, you know, is Donald Trump actually carrying out the mandate that he thinks

he was elected to carry out. I thought he said he wasn't going to get us into more conflicts, and yet we have Venezuela, Iran. He's talking about invading Cuba. You know, there's a lot going on here that I think is evidence of Donald Trump lying about who he was going to be when he got elected. And it's a distraction from what really matters to most American families right now. But as far as the war, I can tell you that,

you know, with 140 now American troops that have been reported wounded and half a dozen or more that have been killed, you know, I wonder how long this conflict will go. And I think the American public does not want to see it go any further. And, you know, again, what are we trying to achieve? I mean, as you say, it is an unpopular conflict. We're seeing polling that shows that, you know, the majority of Americans are against the conflict. And it's having this polarizing effect also on the left and the right, specifically around Israel's involvement, because obviously we're not prosecuting the war alone. And, you know, the Democratic Party writ large has been moving away from this unequivocal support of Israel.

You know, recent polling showed overwhelming sympathy towards Palestinians in the wake of the Gaza war, among Democrats. And there's definitely a belief on the left, and not only on the left, we should say, that we should give Israel less support. And I'm just wondering what you think of the United States government's relationship with Israel should be going forward. You know, I've been terribly disappointed with the leadership that was elected in Israel. I, you know, I want to start by saying I respect the fact that it has been a democracy and they elect their leaders. But they've made the same kind of mistake, to be frank, that the United States electorate has made in electing someone like Benjamin Netanyahu and here in the United States

Donald Trump. And the result of Netanyahu's leadership has been to create additional wars, drawing the United States into those wars. And very importantly, not carrying out what I think are the fundamental values of people who live in Israel, and that is the value of human life and the value of protecting people who are vulnerable and innocent. And let me be clear. With regard to Iran, the leadership of Iran, these were torturous, murderous people. So no love lost on my part when it comes to, you know, the leadership being decedent. in Iran, question whether that was a job that we should be involved in and whether we should be replacing leadership across the world that we disagree with or think are terrible leaders

and our murderers. But I must admit, I'm challenged by this current situation because, you know, Israel was created as a safe haven for Jews around the world who, you know, we were in danger of extinction across the world. And Israel became that hope for Jews everywhere. And it has carried out, I think, over almost all of the years of its existence, a desire simply to live in peace and within its own borders to, you know, construct a society where people can live and work and exist and hope that they wouldn't be attacked. Unfortunately, Israel has been under attack over a lot of years. Meanwhile, here we are where Israel had an opportunity after the atrocities that were committed

by Hamas on October 7th of 2023, and Israel had conducted operations in retaliation. And there was an opportunity, I think, for Israel to then do what I think it has over its history done, which is to operate in a humanitarian fashion to make sure that food aid was delivered to the innocent, to make sure that when bombs were being dropped or the war was being conducted in Gaza, that minimized, it would minimize innocent deaths. that would occur. That didn't happen. And I think that's on Netanyahu. That's on the leadership that he put in place. So I believe strongly that we need to not only secure and grant the right to exist for the state of Israel as a safe haven, but also that we should have a state where Palestinians can be

safe and live in peace. And that should be in Gaza, if you ask me. And so I am torn because we now have a U.S. government that's supporting policies that I don't think the majority of Americans believe in, and I don't think a majority even of Israelis believe in. But that's what's being carried out now. It's interesting. I hear you use the word torn and challenged. And I know that this must be, as it is for many Jews, an incredibly difficult. conversation to have. You know, you used to also be on the board of APAC, the pro-Israel lobby group, and you've since sort of distanced yourself from them. And last August, you also endorsed a Senate effort to block U.S. arms sales to Israel. You said it sends the right kind of message. And it made me wonder if you're undergoing a sort of personal evolution on this issue.

Well, I abandoned APEC more than a dozen years ago. It was an organization that had at one time, being a bipartisan in nature and really all about preserving a strong relationship between the United States and Israel. But about that time a dozen years ago, the organization began to lean much more to the right and much more pro-Trump who had then become a candidate for president. And that disturbed me greatly because once again, APEC back then was not a pack, I might add. It was a public affairs council, as called APAC, but it didn't have a political action committee that was giving money to candidates. It was up to the members themselves. I'm a Democrat.

I was supporting Democrats when they would run for office, not on behalf of APAC, but just supporting Democrats. And I'm somebody who believed in that strong relationship and still do. But the organization became political. They created a super PAC. they began to get involved in elections directly and choosing to support candidates that were MAGA and right wing and Trumpy. And honestly, I just, I didn't want anything to do with that. Just sort of, again, I'm wondering if you see that as a sort of personal evolution, or do you feel like those organizations changed, the leadership of Israel changed,

APEC changed, and you felt distanced from it, or your own views have changed? I don't think that my views haven't changed. What I mean is, I mean, I can't, I can't, it's hard for me to answer that question. I think that it's certainly true that APEC changed. That is certainly true. And that's why I walked away. Again, do I believe that Israel has a right to exist? I do. And my grandfather's name is on a square in Jerusalem because my family has. always believe that there should be a safe haven for Jews. And I still believe that that's true. I mean, we look at the anti-Semitism in the world today. So believe in the right of the state of Israel to exist as a democracy. But I also believe that others have a right to that kind of safe haven. And so I don't know, have my views changed? No, I think I've always believed that. And I grew up in a home where social justice was really important. And So I'm not sure that any of my views exactly have changed, but certainly true that the United States government moved away from the position that I held and that the government of Israel under Netanyahu has moved away from my position.

And APEC, of course, has just become something completely unacceptable. So where do you think that leaves someone like you? If you were in a position to decide U.S. Israel policy, which I absolutely understand that you're not, what exactly should America's relationship be, in your view, to the state of Israel right now? We should be a peacemaker. That's what we should do. And it's certainly true that instead of simply going along with Benjamin Netanyahu's plan that he's had for very many years, by the way, to attack Iran, we should have asked the question, are there alternatives? But, you know, the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu made the appeal to Donald Trump, and I don't know exactly what was said, there's a lot that's been written in kind of guesstimating what was said.

But, you know, the fact that Donald Trump went along, that's the example of the thing that we shouldn't be doing, what we should have been doing is discouraging Netanyahu explaining to him that he can't use U.S. weapons for something like what he was trying to carry out. That is, if we wanted to maintain peace in the Middle East. Now, once again, there have been other methods that have been used to degrade the Iranian ability to develop a nuclear weapon, as you know. And they've been reasonably effective. Donald Trump dismantled many of those things. And that has put us in the situation that we're now in.

This issue is one that has divided a lot of Jewish families. And so I'm just wondering on a personal note, if that's been something that's come up in yours, especially as you've been deciding what positions to take publicly as a governor. Well, you can imagine. I think anybody that's got a family of more than one or two people, there are a lot of different views. There are a few Republicans in my family. there are, I don't think there's anybody that's pro-Trump, I might add, but a few Republicans.

And, you know, we have differences of opinions on lots of issues that come up even among Democrats. So, yeah. I'm Cuban. I mean, we argue all the time about everything. Yeah, well, there's a joke among Jews that, you know, if there are two Jews, there are three opinions about any issue. And so I think that's probably true in law. lots of different religions and families, I might add. So, yeah, look, I think that we have differences within my family politically.

But one thing I think we do share in common is that core belief in social justice and standing up for those who are oppressed, you know, those carry through throughout my family. In this sort of same bucket, in his memoir, Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania said Kamala Harris's vice presidential vetting team asked him about his faith and even if he wasn't Israeli agent. And you were also vetted, and I'm just wondering if they asked you the same things in the same way. They did not ask me those same things in the same way. You know, going through that experience of being vetted for vice president is like getting a, well, the worst kind of colonoscopy that you could get. And so they asked.

a lot of questions. It's tough vetting. And I know, you know, some of it, I guess, seemed offensive. And, you know, to Josh Shapiro. And I don't know what led them to ask that question. I wasn't asked, and yet I'm Jewish, and I think I'm, I'm as much an adherent to my religion as Josh Shapiro is. So not exactly sure who asked that question or why. What I can say is that I wasn't to ask those things. I was asked hard questions for sure, but nothing quite like that. So we're kind of dancing around this central thing, which I feel compelled to ask you, which is that you are often mentioned as a potential 2028 candidate. it for president. And I'm just wondering what you're weighing as you're making that decision.

You know, I'm not weighing that decision. I know you find that surprising maybe, but I, I'm running for real. Is it true? I'm running for re-election as governor. That's what I'm focused on. And listen, I'm proud and pleased that people think that my leadership is, you know, something that would put me on the stage as a potential presidential candidate. But, you know, but I look, for whatever, you know, the reasons that people are doing that, I think have more to do with just the conviction that I've offered on the subject of stepping, you know, between Donald Trump and the people of my state and protecting people. speaking out and being

unafraid to do so. So I think I wish more Democratic politicians were doing that right now. And I wish more politicians in general. I wish Republicans would get religion about, you know, standing by the law and the Constitution. But so I guess that's why people have considered me

as a potential candidate. But I really am focused on the things that matter to the people of my state. And I will continue to do so. And if the question comes up in the future, first question to me will be that I'll have to answer for myself is whatever choices I make, is this the best thing for the state of Illinois and the people of Illinois? Governor, looking at the world right now and America's place in it, it reminds me of what many Democrats see as President Biden's fundamental sort of miscalculation, if you will. When he became president, he pitched that Trump was an aberration, that we can go back to the before times. And I think we've now seen that there's sort of no going back to what came before.

As Canada's Mark Carney said in Davos, the old order is not coming back. And looking at the future beyond Trump, what do you think is coming? What keeps you up at night and also what gives you hope? Donald Trump has made this world less safe. What keeps me up at night is that when we say we are, that the world order is changing, that it means less order. And it means there is more adventurism that's taking place not just by the United States, but by other countries too. If the world isn't willing to act, if the free world isn't willing to act as a, collective against the Russian aggression on Ukraine, then we allow countries simply to decide,

we don't like our neighbor or we'd like to have some of their territory. We're just going to invade. If we have a more powerful army, it's ours for the taking. So that is the world I'm afraid is now upon us and that we need to stop. I agree that Donald Trump may have permanently blown up a world in which the United States was the leader and where now maybe we won't be anymore. But I do think, and I've talked to a lot of people who live in Europe, Americans who live in Europe, and I've asked them, you know, do you think we can reestablish the trust that we had with our allies in Europe?

can we, you know, put it back together so that we're all working in unison with one another with the United States at the helm? And their answer, I asked how long would it take to do that? And two of them, the three people that I can think of, said 20 years. And the third one said never. And I believe it is between 20 years and never. And so that is the fear that I have. Okay. Now, what is my optimism or, you know, what, what do I hope?

what am I hoping for? I'm hoping that when finally we're able to reestablish ourselves as a trustworthy ally, that we can go to the most important of our international relationships, and on a one-to-one basis, restore a sense of order and direction for those relationships, and that the United States can be the most important of the allies among, you know, a plethora of equals, let's say. And then I, you know, our job, I think if we're able to do that, is to restore hope among the American people. I think that people have lost the hope and the optimism and the, you know, the sense that we belong to the greatest nation in the world. world that we're all lucky to be here and that we have obligations. How about if we return to a world

where people sort of feel like they owe something and are willing to give to our country and to promote our country throughout the world as a leader of peace? Governor Pritzker, thank you so much. I really have enjoyed her conversation. Thank you, Lulu. That's Governor J.B. Pritzker. To watch this interview and many others, you can subscribe to our YouTube channel at YouTube.com slash at Symbol the Interview Podcast. This conversation was produced by Wyatt Orm.

It was edited by Annabel Bacon, mixing by Afim Shapiro, original music by Dan Powell and Marian Lazzano. Photography by Philip Montgomery. The rest of the team is Priya Matthew, Seth Kelly, Paola Newdorf, Joe Bill Munoz, Eddie Costas,

Amy Marino, Mark Zemmel, David Hur, Kathleen O'Brien, and Brooke Minters. Our executive producers, is Alison Benedict. Next week, David talks with writer and performer Richard Gadd about life after baby reindeer, his Netflix mega hit, and coming to terms with himself.

I always remember the ending of RuPaul's drag race where he go, if you can't love yourself, how the hell you kind of love someone else? Got to get an amen? I'd be like, oh, Roo, you're killing me right now. And I would always watch that, and I'd always sit that uncomfortably in my chair because it's so true, you know, It's just so true.

I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro, and this is the interview from The New York Times.