Up First from NPR - Gov. Wes Moore on Iran, pardon power, and his future | NPR's Newsmakers

Episode Date: March 27, 2026

In this special episode of Up First, we're sharing the premiere of NPR's newest podcast, Newsmakers, featuring Maryland Gov. Wes Moore. Moore has turned aside speculation that he might seek the presidency in 2028. He is seeking re-election to his current job in 2026.But in this interview with Steve Inskeep, Moore says he's put a lot of thought into the challenge that President Trump’s successor would face upon taking office on January 20, 2029. At 47, Moore is regarded among Democrats as a rising star. The governor and First Lady Dawn Moore have drawn comparisons to the Obamas. He’s a decorated combat veteran, anti-poverty fighter and charismatic public speaker who was elected governor in 2022 in his first ever campaign. NPR's Newsmakers is where you'll find NPR's biggest interviews. Follow the show wherever you listen to podcasts or subscribe and watch on NPR’s YouTube channel.To manage podcast ad preferences, review the links below:See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Steve Inskeep with a special episode of Up First. It's a conversation from our brand new sister show, NPR's Newsmakers. In each episode, we interview some of the most influential people of our time. Real questions. Pushing for real answers to drive at what they really think. You can watch the show on NPR's YouTube channel or search for it wherever you get your podcasts. Wes Moore is the Democratic governor of Maryland. He's considered a rising Democratic star.

and he's sometimes talked about as a future presidential candidate. Moore is also an American combat veteran, and that was relevant to the discussion we had here in the Maryland State House. I want to ask about some news. What are you thinking as your former unit, the 82nd Airborne Division, is deployed to the Middle East? You know, I've had a lot of conversations with some of the folks that I serve with, in fact, recently as early as this morning.

There was always something that we knew as paratroopers. as members of the 82nd, or just frankly, anybody in the military, is that you never authorized military force unless, A, military force was the last option. B, we had an understanding of what the mission and the endgame was. And C, you were spending your time and your energy building the right kind of coalition that could help to be successful in advance. The problem with this mission is none of those things, have a not been accomplished, but I'm not sure if any of the three of them have even been thought

about. Because there is no one who could argue that military action was the last resort on this mission. Nobody. There's nobody that can argue that we understand what the mission is or mission accomplishment is or the endgame. And it's not because we're being naive. It's because we've all heard maybe a dozen things from the president himself. And the third thing, when we talk about an international coalition, I mean, that's almost laughable when you look at the fact that there is not an international coalescing around this that's going to help us to accomplish the mission. So I remember when I was speaking, in fact, I was speaking with a person I served with this morning. And I told him, I said, I'm just, I'm praying for our paratroopers.

I'm praying for their family members. And honestly, I'm praying for the leadership of this country. I'm praying for the president. I'm praying for the Secretary of Defense. I'm praying that God give them guidance and vision. I'm praying that God give them an understanding of the men and women and their families who they're asking to actually do the work because I think that's been lost in all this. And I'm praying that we have leadership that can actually meet this moment.

When you talk about defining the mission, that's in a broad strategic sense. I want to ask a tactical question as someone who serves. there is talk of sending these troops perhaps to seize an island. You wouldn't attack Iran the mainland, but you might try to seize an island. What does it take for a few thousand American troops to seize an island under fire? Well, let's also, let's be clear that there is no mission that is as easy as advertised. You know, when people talk about, well, you know, it's just a plot of land. You don't think the Iranians have thought about that, that the Iranians have thought about that for years,

that we've been preparing for that for years. I was actually, ironically, I was talking with a guy that I both serve with and also trained with. And he contacted me probably a couple weeks ago. And he said, remember when in training, when we used to run battle drills on Iran and how complicated it was? We're talking 25 years ago. This is not a new phenomenon. So this idea that somehow this would be easy to do is laughable. And so I just, I think that both.

the idea of the taking over of territory, or if they're talking about utilizing them or special operators to be able to seize enriched uranium, or if they're talking about using it to help to take over the Strait of Hormuz, or if they're talking about using them to go into Tehran,

the thing that I would just remind people of this, let's not pretend like the Iranians have not been running battle drills on this for decades. As long as Americans have been training. as long as Americans have been training for this. The president never did address the nation. No.

Should he? Yes. And in fact, he addressed the nation a few days before and said nothing about it. And so, you know, we are, to be clear, and it's important for people to understand this, we are a nation at war right now. And I know it might not feel like it to many Americans. We are a nation at war. and we have not either been spoken to from the President of the United States. We have not been asked to sacrifice anything as a country.

We don't have a measurement of explanation as to what is going on. We are just simply asking a very small portion of our population to go on and take on this weight, while, by the way, we're asking the rest of the population to pay more in gas prices, to pay more in food prices, to be able to watch health care being pulled away and food security being pulled away without any understanding of how these two things actually, how these things actually translate and are connected to one another.

So no, the president of the United States owes it to the people of this country. If you are going to do this, if you were going to take on the most solemn choice, choice as a president of the United States and as commander-in-chief, you owe it to the American people and you owe it to these soldiers, these sailors, these airmen, these Marines, and their family members to explain what it is that we're doing

and what it is that we're all asked to be sacrificed. Even if you disagree with starting the war, does the United States now have to fight it through to a victory because a victory by Iran would be so disastrous? But what is a victory by the United States mean? What does a victory by the United States looked like? How would you define that if you were president? No one has articulated that. Because right now, here's what we're on pace for, right? We're on pace for a conflict that has cost about a billion dollars a day that has driven up gas prices over a dollar since this conflict began all across the United States of America. And we're not on pace for a regime change. We're not on pace for a complete seizing of all the enriched uranium or that Iran would now be on any detoured path

for a nuclear weapon. What does that? Does victory actually look like? And frankly, what I'm hearing from the administration, even what they're claiming as, you know, oh, we've won the war, this is not victory. What they're claiming for, what it seems like they're seeking, is some kind of quiet exit strategy from something that I think that the reason we're here is because of the lack of planning that has gotten us here in the first place.

How would you have handled Iran if it was in your lap and it was back in February before the shooting started and you know there's these negotiations going on? you know that Israel regards Iran as a threat. The United States has concerns about Iran's nuclear program. What would you have done? I think we all have concerns about Iran's nuclear program because I do think we are dealing with a nation that had they gained access to a nuclear weapon

would have no problem in using it. So I think there was a bipartisan consensus for how that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon and that there needed to be not just a bipartisan consensus, but there was an international consensus about our ability to be able to prevent them from doing that. That's why the negotiations were so important. That's why being able to actually come up with a nuclear deal became so important.

You would have kept negotiating that. I think until someone could tell me, until intelligence told me, that we are now hitting a point that we have an imminent threat on our hands and all forms of negotiation had hit a brick wall, then that's the moment. Like I said, when we talk about how military force should be the last reason, resort, that's when I think military force is something that you then need to look at. But I don't think there's anybody who was arguing that we were at that point. Telsie Gabbard, the director of

national intelligence, said the president was the one who would be allowed to define the imminent threat and that he did. Well, I also think the president needs to understand that if you're dealing with the imminent threat through warfare, then whether or not the president of the United States is the one to make a final authorization is one thing, but then you still need to notify Congress and that people still need to have an understanding as to what is going on, that, that, that the, what the president of the United States has not just the immoral, but the legal authority to protect the homeland. We understand that, and we agree with that. But if you can't argue that there was an eminent threat that required you to put the country at war, then that's where this gets very difficult

and very murky, and frankly, I think it's indefensible. We're talking during a week that is the anniversary of an event here in Maryland, the collapse of the key bridge outside of Baltimore. So two years ago, that happened in 2024. In 2025, as many people will know, you had an exchange of words with the president, and he threatened to cut off funding for repairing that bridge, rebuilding that bridge. In early 2026, though, things had progressed to the point where you put out a joint. Point statement was Sean Duffy, the Transportation Secretary, hailing progress. What changed?

Well, I think nothing changed. I think what happened was we've just continued what has been historic progress. I mean, Maryland has put on a case study on how to respond in moments of crisis. Because at, you know, 202 in the morning on March 26, two years ago, when I first heard about this, you know, a ship the size of three football field is collapsing into our iconic key bridge, you know, immediately. we sprung into action, putting the state on the state of emergency, working with state and local and federal partners. When they told us it was going to take 11 months to clear the federal channel, we got it cleared in 11 weeks. When they told us it could take years to be able to get permitting done, to be able to fix a bridge, because this bridge is nearly two miles long. We got permitting done in months that we were able to bring closure and comfort to the six families who lost loved ones, construction workers who were working that night, that when they said it could take five to seven years

to get to a 70% design build for the bridge, we got it done in 14 months. This has been, this is the fastest moving large project in America right now. In Maryland, we are showing that we move fast and we get big things done. And we've been working with our federal partners, first in the Biden administration

and now working with Secretary Duffy, the Department of Transportation. He's been collaborative, whatever the president may have said? I think the secretary, Duffy has been a very good partner on this because whether it's working on the key bridge together or whether it is working on the American Legion Bridge. Another bridge that's needing rebuilding. Another major bridge that we plan on getting done on our time.

So, you know, I'm very clear that, you know, we will work with anybody to be able to get this done. If you look at the 100% cost share that we have for the key bridge, that came from a bipartisan group, Democrats and Republicans in Congress who all voted to get that 100%. 100% cost share for the key bridge. And so I am, I'm thankful because this project is moving fast. It is moving safely. And I think Maryland is really putting on a case study about how to respond in crisis and how to get big things done. I want to ask about bipartisanship. You and I shared a stage recently with a couple of your fellow governors, one of whom was Kevin Stitt, Republican of Oklahoma, very conservative. And he made a statement that you agreed with. He said that the government should

promote equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, which in my mind is a line that is used as sometimes a jab against progressives, but you agreed with it. I wholeheartedly agree with them. Why? Because I believe that the promise of America is that everyone and America, you know, I'm not saying that everyone in this country needs to end up at the same spot, but I believe everyone in this country deserves a fair shot. And that's, that distance is where I think this country is where I think this country has had historic challenges, where I think you have some people who think that the definition of fairness is everyone ends up in the same spot, right? Including some people in your party, would you say? Absolutely. And I just fundamentally disagree, because I don't think that the answer for everybody

should be the same. It's the same reason why here in the state of Maryland, we push so hard on things like alternative pathways for education, where we have made historic investments. I've quadrupled the number of apprenticeship and trade slots that we have within our state. We've gotten rid of this idea that we should be grading or evaluating our high schools based on their four-year college acceptance rate. Because I'm like, that is a key input, but it's not a key performance indicator, that I want to make sure that every single student in our state has a chance for lifelong work, wages, and wealth.

And if that includes a four-year degree, fantastic. And if it does not, fantastic. That we need to make sure that every single person in our state has a chance for lifelong opportunities and economic growth and sustainable economic mobility, but we should not be telling each and every one of them what it should look like. Meaning that people should approach things differently. I'm curious as I listen to you, Marylanders will know that you just had to deal with closing a budget deficit or that lawmakers did. You have big deficits in your future. Education is part of the reason. Is the very education

program you described part of the problem or part of the challenge? No, because I think that, you know, there's a few things that I think the people of my state, excuse me, no. You know, one is that we believe in fiscal, discipline, fiscal responsibility, that, you know, we've now passed, we've done something that people in Washington seemingly can't do. I've now passed four budgets, balanced budgets, that have actually where the general fund is smaller than the year before. So since I've been the governor, we have forced our state to do more with less. But do you know what's also happened during that time period, even though we are, you know, repeatedly shrinking the size of our state budget? what's also happened is we've increased our math and reading scores in every single grade inside of the state of Maryland. What's also happened is we have the fastest drops in violent crime

anywhere in the United States of America here in the state of Maryland. What's also happened is that we have one of the fastest job growth rates in the entire country, in the state of Maryland. We've gone from 43rd in the country in unemployment to now having an unemployment rate that is systemically lower than the national average, that we've added nearly. a hundred thousand new jobs since I've been the governor and 35,000 new businesses have been added to the state of Maryland since I've been the governor. So I think what we've been able to show is that you can be fiscally disciplined, but also be very smart about what you're investing in. And I think one of things that you have to invest in, you've got to invest in education

and you've got to invest in public education and you've got to invest in your community colleges, the places where the vast majority of our students are getting their educational pathways, because that's also what makes a certain jurisdiction very attractive to business and economic growth. I want to ask about another potential point of bipartisan agreement that might surprise people. Elon Musk recently was asked why he had not given away more of his hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth, and he was quoted as saying, I don't think that money can be given away very effectively. He didn't think philanthropy works.

You and I were just talking before this interview about your own skepticism about philanthropy. Are you on the same page as Elon Musk? Well, we do have a lot of agreement. And ironically, I ran one of the largest poverty fighting organizations in this country before I ran for governor. It's like, no, I don't come from a political background or a political world or political family. You know, this is the first office I've ran for my life. And before I ran this, I ran something called the Robin Hood Foundation. And I remember when they first approached me about it, I told them that I'm not sure if I'm the right person for this job to be the CEO because I'm naturally skeptical of philanthropy.

where I oftentimes feel like philanthropy, you know, philanthropy for many places is almost like philanthropy for philanthropists. Like, they give away money because it makes them feel better. But they're not actually helping to address the problem because if you're not addressing policy and if you're not addressing some of these lawmakers

that are making really bad decisions, then you're not actually interested in solving the problem. You're just simply asking yourself to clean up the debris that comes from broken systems. And so I think that philanthropy, philanthropy has an obligation. They've got an obligation that, yes, if you want to give away money to support after-school programs, fantastic. If you want to give away your money to support food programs,

great. But if you're not spending your time figuring out why there's so many people who don't have food, and if you're not figuring out why there's so many people who are finishing high school and aren't ready for college or careers, or if you're spending your time, you say, I'm giving my money towards criminal justice reform. Well, put your money towards why there needs to be reforms in the first place. policy matters in this. And that's why when I first became the CEO of Romanovna, we actually created, for the first time the organization's 30-year history,

a policy wing. Because you cannot say you're actually interested in solving the problem if you're not actually addressing why the problem exists in the first place. You are implicitly criticizing a lot of organizations by what you're saying. 100%. There's a lot of foundations you think are not getting their money's worth.

They're not aiming at systemic problems, I guess is the way you do it. They're not. And honestly, I think, you're also seeing a challenge in the way philanthropy is even structured, right? Because if you have philanthropies oftentimes that are serving as C3s, you know, one of things, one C3, sorry, five one C3s, correct, nonprofit status. One of the challenge of, of nonprofit status is it means that inherently you cannot be involved in political activities. So you're telling me you want me to help to fix a problem

without helping to address why the problem is there in the first place. So there's something structurally wrong and backwards about that. I also have a very real issue with, oftentimes philanthropies who have those restrictions on how much they have to spend on their endowments. And so you have some philanthropies that are saying, you know, the goal, you know, they've been around, we've been around for 70 and 100 years. And I was like, what if you had a philanthropy that said our job is to be gone in three? We're going to give all of a job. We're going to work ourselves out of a job, right? What about if that was your goal instead of saying, how can I spend as little from my endowment as possible? As I'm listening to you,

governor, I'm also thinking about the attitude of the Trump administration toward non-profits. The attitude of the administration is that nonpartisan, non-profits are secretly all political. They're all favoring Democrats. They're all partisan. I think you're saying the opposite. They're not political enough. Yes. That's exactly right. I actually think that, and first of all, for the irony is when I think when you look at the places that the president has attacked, there's no sincerity in what he is saying, because a lot of the places that he actually has has attacked have been the places that have really tried to play it straight down the lines. And that's actually what's kept their C3 status independent because they have not delved into

the political or delve into the policy. And I'm not saying that, you know, going into policy means that you have to agree or, you know, or disagree with something inherently that an independent political party says. But what I am saying is this, are you interested in solving the problem or not? and if your answer is, well, I'm going to solve the problem, but I'm never going to deal with the policy issues, then I don't think that's real. You know, I remember when I was at Robin Hood, that, you know, we started focusing our time

on things like the child tax credit and making enhancement to the earn income tax credit. Because I said as an organization, we have spent all these years fighting poverty, but if we can make an adjustment on child tax credit, you could do more in that one decision than the organization has done in 30 years. Money in every poor family's pocket.

100%. Right? And so, and I remember when we started advocating for that, and I was, you know, speaking with a, you know, we're speaking with now a former governor on this issue and using our voice to say that they should make this adjustment. And we got, and I told me you should talk about in your state of the state. And I got an advanced copy of the state of the state of. And there was nothing in there about child poverty or the child tax credit. And I remember speaking with the head of public policy, we brought on board, got him Jason Cohn. And he said to me one day, he said, listen, we worked for six months. to get them to include a line in the speech. But what if you could write the whole speech? And that was the point. Policy matters in this. And the people who are writing the speeches and giving the speeches,

they are the ones who are going to have an outsize impact on whether or not we can solve these problems. What does the spread and rapid adoption of artificial intelligence mean for economic opportunity for Americans? This is going to be one of the most transformational, both opportunities and challenges that our society has faced. And here in the state of Maryland, we're being very open-eyed about it, even though I think there's a lot of places that are not.

We've been able to try to capture the benefits of it, where, for example, we are using artificial intelligence for things like our summer EBT program or a summer food program for our kids, where now we have about three quarters of a million kids that are receiving summer food from artificial intelligence. Same thing what we have for are what we call constituent services, or almost like consumer services, where we're utilizing artificial intelligence to help to make sure the people's needs are being met here in the state of Maryland. But I'm also very clear on this, that we are now watching a stock market that continues to skyrocket, profitability, that continues to outstretch.

And by the way, the stock market gains are basically being driven by like seven companies. and unemployment go up, that we're watching companies that are now more profitable than ever and also laying off people. It's because they're investing in artificial intelligence, they're investing in technologies, and we are not preparing our society for it.

And so I do think it is a real obligation for all of us as leaders to be able to say, what can we do to embrace the benefits of it? Because I think it can be transformational in education and in healthcare, in public safety, yet understand how powerful this technology is, and if we are not careful, this is the type of technology that will overpower us, and the people will never forgive us for that.

And there are many ways to think about that. One is the power of the technology itself, but the other is the economic and political power of those few companies that end up being the dominant players. That's right. Who, by the way... Is this a risk to democracy is what I want to know? It's a very real risk of democracy. It's a very real risk. It's a very real risk. risk for democracy also because if you look at the way that we've looked at this, particularly from a federal administration, if you look at the EO that the president signed. Executive order, right.

Sorry, the executive order. That executive order reads like it was written by Silicon Valley. That executive order basically said, listen, we got this. All of you in states, all of you governors, all of everyone else, don't worry about it. They're opposed to state regulation of AI. Completely. completely. And I just think that we have to be smarter about this. Now, I'm not saying that we need to have 50 different guidelines, right? Because I understand the challenge of that, right? And I understand

that if something is doing a process in Maryland and Montana and Texas and North Carolina that we should not then have to understand four different ways that we can process the work. I get that. But what's going to happen if we have an absence of federal leadership on this is that's exactly what that is going to end up happening, end up to termining. I think the federal government, and I think Congress and the White House, they have to take a leadership role, and they cannot get steamrolled by Silicon Valley and by these tech entrepreneurs who somehow think that they should be able to write all the rules. Another aspect of power, how do you believe AI will shape future elections starting with this falls? Well, I think

people need to be, you know, for states, first of all, for elections, it's states that are running this. The federal government does not run elections, and that's one of the reasons why it's so problematic when you're watching what Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are doing to try to manipulate this next election, especially when you consider the fact that states are in control of what happens in elections in their own jurisdictions. But I think we are going to see how people are going to use AI and manipulative technologies for ads. You're going to see how it's going to be used for introduction of misinformation. You're going to see how, particularly for AI, because remember, this is a learning technology. Agentic AI means it's constant.

learning based on information. And you're going to see how they're going to use that to be able to manipulate who can vote, when they vote, and how they vote. And so I do think it's important for states to get in the game on this because election security has got to be our top priority as we're thinking about things going into November. I'm also just thinking about manipulating the minds of people, influencing people in different ways, specializing messages for them. And I would imagine because it's a competitive game that if the other guys are doing that, you're going to have to do that. Yeah, well, or I think you need to stop everyone from doing it, right? I think you're going to have to have a bar as to what information is put out there.

And frankly, you know, not coming from a political background, you kind of see it, right? You're like, when you're looking at some of the misinformation that people are utilizing and the lies, that they will just allow and tolerate, it's staggering. Where, and for many people that's actually become a business model about how to confuse people. So real facts and real data and real information can never make it into them because it's a lot easier to introduce lies. How do you limit that without censorship? Well, because I think what you have to be able to do is be able to, first of all, you have to be able to be aggressive when it comes to introducing your information and introducing real data and having real platforms for that. But I do

think there needs to be standards. And I think that the social media companies have a responsibility on this. I think local media has to have a responsibility on this. That if, if, you're you are going to allow things that are just blatantly false or blatantly dangerous, that that should be a measure of responsibility on you as the carrier or you as the provider to be able to make sure that that is not allowed on your platform. It appears that Democrats have the advantage heading into the 2026 elections. History and midterm elections favors the party out of power. The president is unpopular. We could name other factors. So they have the wind at their backs. But let's be real. How could your party still

screw this up. Well, you know, I tell you one thing that we're focusing on here in Maryland, and we're not planning on screwing anything up, is, you know, I don't think it's just about the message. I think it's about the results. You know, I'm very clear that here in Maryland, and I'm on the ballot in November, the way we plan on winning is we're going to continue showing and reminding people of what's happened since our administration has come on board. That in the state of Maryland, we have, We have now seen how we've been able to give the middle class a tax cut. And we've asked the very wealthiest Marylanders to pay a little bit more so we can do things like have an education system that is providing outstripped results on reading and mathematics. That we've been able to cut in half the teacher shortage and the teacher vacancy rate.

That we've been able to now see how we have a police department that is actually being invested in where we have amongst the fastest drops in violent crime anywhere in America. that's not a narrative change. Those are results. Rob Emanuel would probably agree with you. He was an earlier guest in this series and argued that he wanted to hear more about education, for example, from Democrats. Also said they were spending too much time on social issues.

Was he right about that? Well, I think it depends on what we're talking about, right? Because, you know... You're talking about trans issues, for example. Oh, listen, I think that, you know, do we focus on things like reading and writing and, you know, making sure that our students are prepared for the world, 100%.

Do I also think it's important to make sure that all of our children see themselves in the future, that people can feel safe in their own neighborhoods and in their own communities? I do. Do I think it's important that we're providing proper pathways for people to identify what it is that they want

to do with their lives? I do. We've made Maryland the first state in the country that now has a service year option for all of our high school graduates, where every high school graduate now has a chance to have a paid year service to the state of Maryland. and they can do it however they want to do it,

but it's because we want them all to feel part of a community and this idea that in this time with this political divisiveness and vitriol, that service will save us. You have said a number of times in a number of ways that you're not running in 2028. Is that still the case? I have said it multiple times, and it is still the case. And I think about it this way where I don't come from a background of just like running for this office to run for this office to run for this office and like you know i i i don't

understand that i ran for governor for a simple reason i wanted to address the issue of child poverty in my state i wanted to address the issue of violence in my state and we're doing it and so i'm going back and i'm i'm laser focused on asking the people of my state for for their vote again in november because i know that we've got a lot of good work done and i know that uh we're ready to do some more. With that said, what is a quality that you think the next president needs to have? You know, I think that we need to make sure that we're not just explaining what's going wrong, but we're showing what can go right. You know, I think that Donald Trump has been a fantastic vessel for the frustration. He's just not a vehicle for the solution. And he had no desire to be

that. That I think that, you know, we can not, and we're not going to just get away with saying, look at how bad Donald Trump is, because that is a, that is a, you know, you're never going to win long term on anger. You got to be able to show what an alternative looks like. So when you are watching things like the federal government who was spending their time, raising prices on everything through tariff policies and tax policies, and you see how us as governors, that if you look in the state in Maryland where, you know, I've cut taxes for the middle class. We've actually made sure that we provide additional snap and food assistance for our people, particularly when the federal government

was pulling it away. When you watch how the federal government was firing federal workers, over 25,000 federal workers have been fired inside the state of Maryland more than any other state in this country. And what did we then decide to do? We then decided to say, how are we focusing and working with the private sector to get them employed? How are we doing innovative things like our feds to eds and getting federal. workers into the education space. So we're showing not just that we push back, but we're showing what it means to push forward. Do you feel you have in mind what the situation is the next president is likely to face in

January of 2029? I think that we are going to see how the next president, I think there's really five buckets that the next president is going to have to figure out what everything falls into. I think you're going to have what's broken and irreparable. I think you're going to have what's broken and can be fixed. I think you're going to have what's broken and needs to be fixed differently. I think you're going to have what survives but needs to be broken. And I think you're going to have what survived and needs to be sustained.

And I think everything falls into those five buckets. But I think we've got to remember that there is a bit of a, BC AD moment for this presidency that Donald Trump is introducing and what he is doing and the chaos he is causing. But I think that the answer cannot simply be, well, now we've just got to put everything back together without an understanding of, well, how did this country for a second time allow him back into the Oval Office? There was something functionally broken and why the process wasn't working for really. real families and real people, families like mine. And what we have to do to think about this in a very clear and sober way

that it's not just about building this thing back, but understanding why this thing was broken before Donald Trump even ran again. Governor Moore, it's a pleasure talking with you. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be with you. Thank you. You enjoyed that. Thank you.

Me too. Wow. That was great. I could do another half hour. You got another half hour? I know. I know. What do you think?

Another half hour? we got some part two's coming wow that was great yeah i i'm trying to be respectful of your time but i would have asked what is a thing that is likely to survive that needs to be broken oh i can give you a laundry no i mean honestly um for for example um and again we're still we're still early yeah um and this and everyone might not agree with me on this but for example um pardons i would take the part of of power away away, the pardon power away from the president and every single governor. And this is actually really hard for me because, um, so last year I did the largest mass pardon in the history of the United States of America, where I pardoned over 175,000

misdemeanor cannabis convictions in the stroke of a pen because I think it is absurd that we can have a legal cannabis market inside of the state of Maryland, but I also still have people who, and so we have a new billion dollar market, Maryland. And I still have people who can't get a barber's license or can't get a student loan or can't get a home loan for a misdemeanor cannabis conviction for the 1990s. I'm really proud of how I've used the pardoned power. And I see how the President of the United States on day one, he pardoned people who attempted a coup on January 6th. He's pardoning people that are now turning around and investing in his kids' business, it is disgusting. And it's a grift. And as thankful as I am

to be one of only 51 people in the world who can pardon an American for something, right? Only 51 people have that power. And I'm grateful to be one of them. If that's how it's going to be used, I would take it from all of us. And that's one example. Wow. Okay. Thank you. For more newsmakers from NPR News, you can search for the show wherever you get podcasts or watch it on NPR's YouTube channel. And remember, newsmakers like Up First relies on supporters who value independent journalism and a free press. Join NPR Plus today to support our work and get perks from the podcasts you trust. Go to plus.npr.org.

I'm Steven Skeep. Thanks for listening to Up First from NPR News.