By playing, you agree to uListen's Terms and Privacy Policy and YouTube's Terms of Service.
On with Kara SwisherSteve Hilton was endorsed by Trump. Can he win over Democrats?
Summaries, chapters, transcripts, and FAQs on this page are made by uListen, not YouTube.
CHAPTERS
Jump to publisher timestampsChapter summaries
Hilton’s case for a GOP win: California is unaffordable and mismanaged
Steve Hilton argues that one-party Democratic control has produced worsening conditions for “regular working people” and small businesses. Kara Swisher challenges him that many of these problems are long-standing, pushing him to explain what’s different now.
- •Hilton lists indicators he says show California is doing poorly: poverty, unemployment, cost of living, groceries, energy, and housing costs
- •He highlights homelessness, weak school outcomes despite spending, and a deteriorating business climate
- •Kara questions whether these are new issues and presses him on why voters should believe they can be fixed now
- •Hilton frames the moment as a clear majority believing the state is going in the wrong direction and wanting change
“Why you?”: pragmatism, primary victory, and a pitch beyond party
Hilton attributes his primary success to a pragmatic, non-ideological platform focused on affordability and business conditions. Swisher notes the Republican field dynamics and pivots to the challenge of winning Democrats and independents.
- •Hilton cites receiving 2.3 million votes in the primary as evidence of viability
- •He contrasts himself with a more hardline Republican alternative and presents himself as practical rather than ideological
- •He says his goal is to let people live the life they want in California “in an affordable way”
- •Swisher sets up the central electoral math: Democrats have a major registration advantage and Hilton trails in polling
Why Democrats should consider him: “anti-Trump and still vote for me?”
Hilton describes explicitly courting anti-Trump Californians who still want change at the state level. He points to campaign messaging and examples of Democratic states electing Republican governors, while Swisher questions whether today’s politics allow that.
- •Hilton recounts launching the general-election campaign in Boyle Heights to spotlight government failure and abandonment
- •He describes ads framed around whether voters can oppose Trump and still support Hilton
- •He argues many Californians dislike Trump but want state-level change and can “bifurcate” their vote
- •He notes examples of Democratic-leaning states that have elected Republican governors; Swisher questions whether he fits that mold now
Where he says he disagrees with Trump—and where he expects alignment
Pressed for concrete disagreements, Hilton cites acknowledging Biden won in 2020 and disputes specific administration ideas affecting California. He also says broad economic direction from a Republican administration generally aligns with his preferences.
- •Hilton says Biden won the 2020 election and notes Trump views it differently
- •He opposes the idea of removing Customs and Border Patrol from California airports as retaliation for sanctuary policies
- •He disagrees with withdrawing UC funding and with the FCC siding against California regulators on landline service
- •He says he’ll prioritize California’s interests but expects general alignment on deregulation and tax cuts
Managing a Trump endorsement: loyalty politics, relationships, and staying state-focused
Swisher asks how Hilton will avoid Trump backlash while appealing to Democrats. Hilton emphasizes practical cooperation with the administration and says he won’t spend time on national or international issues, criticizing state leaders for chasing them.
- •Swisher frames Trump as demanding loyalty and asks how Hilton will navigate disagreements without triggering retaliation
- •Hilton stresses relationships with administration officials and argues that helps California
- •He says he intends to focus on fixing California rather than engaging in foreign-policy disputes
- •He criticizes Gavin Newsom for pursuing international efforts while California faces high gas prices and poor school results
Affordability agenda: gas prices, regulations, and executive-branch levers
Hilton argues California-specific regulations drive a large portion of the state’s higher gas prices, beyond national factors. He claims a governor can act through agencies and appointments to reverse policies that restrict in-state oil production.
- •Swisher challenges him on causes of gas price increases; Hilton emphasizes California’s prices are higher relative to other states
- •Hilton argues key drivers are regulatory: low-carbon fuel standard, cap-and-trade/invest, refinery regulations
- •He proposes reducing oil imports by increasing California production
- •He points to CalGEM as an agency he says blocks permits and claims a governor can change course via appointments or directives
Income tax relief and how to pay for it: spending cuts, process reform, and Medicaid for non-citizens
Hilton details a plan to eliminate state income tax for lower and middle earners and describes how he’d offset lost revenue. Swisher presses him to name what he would cut; Hilton points to rolling spending back toward pre-pandemic levels and targeting specific programs.
- •Hilton says he has cross-party experience from coalition government work in the UK and expects areas of common ground in California
- •He describes eliminating state income tax up to a threshold he says was raised to $150,000 after feedback
- •He argues California’s budget has grown dramatically and sets a goal of returning to pre-pandemic spending levels adjusted for inflation
- •He cites expensive infrastructure delivery (roads costing more than elsewhere) and proposes stripping bureaucracy to get more value
- •He identifies “full scope” Medicaid spending for non-citizens as unacceptable and cites it as a major budget item
When federal policy raises costs: tariffs, agriculture impacts, and lobbying the White House
Swisher argues Trump policies like tariffs worsen affordability and asks how Hilton would respond. Hilton says he won’t fight broad national policy but would lobby on specific California impacts, particularly for agriculture, using relationships to raise concerns.
- •Swisher cites tariffs and other national factors as drivers of higher prices and asks how Hilton would handle conflicts with the White House
- •Hilton says he would avoid broad ideological fights but intervene where California is specifically harmed
- •He points to agriculture as an area where targeted advocacy could matter
- •He argues a strong relationship with administration officials could help him get attention to California-specific impacts
Election security and voting: mail ballots, voter rolls, and Trump’s fraud claims
Swisher asks for short answers about election integrity claims. Hilton says the system is generally secure but argues voter rolls are outdated and sees that as the core issue; he also declines to validate Trump’s call for federal investigation of the primary.
- •Hilton says California’s mail-in voting operation is generally secure but claims voter rolls are not
- •He says he personally prefers voting on Election Day but acknowledges mail-in voting is convenient and likely here to stay
- •Asked about Trump’s request for federal prosecutors to investigate the primary, he says his campaign saw nothing concerning
- •He says non-citizen illegal voting is not widespread, though he opposes extending non-citizen voting to some local elections
Tech and AI: cautious regulation, child safety, and keeping the “full stack” of jobs in California
Swisher pivots to Silicon Valley, asking what role the state should play in regulating tech. Hilton says tech needs the least government help, but he supports urgent regulation in areas affecting children and creators, and he emphasizes attracting manufacturing and production jobs tied to tech.
- •Hilton says his job would be to help all industries, but tech is least in need of help right now
- •He warns about unintended consequences when regulators don’t understand the technology
- •He identifies two priority regulatory areas: protections for children and copyright/creative rights impacted by AI
- •He argues California has big tech revenue but high unemployment and low labor force participation, and he wants more manufacturing/production-side tech jobs in-state
- •Swisher raises responsibility for child internet harms; Hilton focuses on devices and unsupervised access rather than individual apps
Kids, smartphones, and social norms: bans, enforcement, and industry coordination
Hilton argues the central problem for youth harm is smartphones enabling unsupervised access, not social media alone. Swisher presses for stronger state action—pointing to lawsuits and international approaches—while Hilton advocates enforcing school phone bans and building norms against smartphones for children.
- •Hilton references his earlier writing arguing kids should not have smartphones due to unsupervised internet access
- •He says parent responsibility is constrained by peer pressure and network effects among kids
- •Swisher cites evidence and legal actions against platforms and asks why California shouldn’t adopt stronger restrictions like social media bans
- •Hilton says social media bans are easy to evade and become “Whac-A-Mole,” preferring device-focused approaches and better enforcement of school bans
- •He suggests a governor could convene companies like Apple and Meta to work out practical solutions such as safer non-internet devices for kids
AI backlash and data centers: rhetoric, mitigation, and a manufacturing angle
Swisher describes growing skepticism toward AI and local backlash against data centers. Hilton blames tech leaders’ extreme rhetoric for public fear, argues data center impacts can be mitigated and regulated, and suggests AI could lower manufacturing costs and support reshoring.
- •Swisher frames data centers as a proxy for public anger and distrust around AI and cites community opposition even to “good” projects
- •Hilton attributes much of the fear to AI leaders’ doomsday rhetoric and says it damaged public confidence
- •He says data center concerns like electricity usage, siting, and noise should be mitigated, and government should require mitigation if companies won’t do it
- •He argues AI plus automation could reduce manufacturing costs and potentially bring more manufacturing back, including to California
- •Swisher notes job loss concerns; Hilton responds that fewer workers may still mean substantial employment at scale
Immigration: legal vs. illegal, enforcement approach, TPS, and Dreamers
Sarah Longwell challenges Hilton on being a Trump-endorsed candidate in a heavily immigrant state. Hilton emphasizes being proud of legal immigration while drawing a firm line on illegal entry, says enforcement should be calm and cooperative to avoid raids, and differentiates TPS from other statuses while supporting protections for Dreamers.
- •Longwell questions why voters should trust a Trump-endorsed candidate given harsh rhetoric and enforcement actions, and asks how Hilton would differ at the state level
- •Hilton calls himself “the candidate of the legal immigrant community” and stresses distinguishing legal from illegal immigration
- •He argues California’s sanctuary law still allows cooperation with federal enforcement in certain cases and says cooperation would avoid heavy-handed raids
- •Swisher asks how he would have handled ICE raids; Hilton claims they wouldn’t have happened with better local cooperation
- •On stripping legal statuses, he says green cards and student visas shouldn’t be retroactively revoked, but describes TPS as inherently temporary and suggests a process to transition people to another track
- •He says he strongly supports protecting people brought to the U.S. as children
Hollywood and the Paramount/WBD merger: incentives, bureaucracy, and limited governor control
Hilton says entertainment needs urgent attention and argues that competitive tax incentives and streamlined bureaucracy are essential to bring production back. Asked about California’s lawsuit to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger, he calls the suit political but also says it wouldn’t be a main gubernatorial focus.
- •Hilton argues California must expand film/TV tax incentives to compete with other states and countries and treat the situation as a crisis response
- •He emphasizes making incentives more predictable (uncapped/automatic) and broadening eligible spending
- •He proposes revamping the California Film Commission into a “concierge” to help productions navigate permits and bureaucracy
- •Swisher presses him on the merger lawsuit; Hilton argues the AG’s rationale is weak and cites commitments to theatrical releases as a benefit
- •He acknowledges the governor can’t directly control the AG’s actions and says his focus would be broader industry support, including meeting with unions
Housing and homelessness: “enforce the law,” shelter capacity, and mental health beds
Swisher asks for Hilton’s signature policy on homelessness. He argues the state must remove encampments by enforcing existing laws, place people into shelter and treatment, and expand mental health capacity by pursuing Medicaid reimbursement changes he says would allow larger facilities.
- •Hilton frames street homelessness as heavily driven by severe mental illness and addiction, regardless of which came first
- •He defines enforcement as physically moving people off streets and into places where they can recover, not fining or jailing them
- •He cites ideas like using a disused military base and argues shelter is feasible given empty properties and available funding
- •He says California spends large sums on homelessness but lacks mental health bed capacity
- •He proposes using a federal Medicaid waiver he says would help fund larger mental health facilities beyond a 16-bed limit
Closing: staying in California regardless of the election outcome
Swisher asks whether Hilton would leave California if he loses, citing others who moved away. Hilton says he loves California, praises its beauty and “rebel spirit,” and can’t imagine living elsewhere.
- •Swisher frames the question as whether he’ll remain committed if voters keep Democratic leadership
- •Hilton says he would not leave and describes being “in love” with California
- •He highlights California’s natural beauty, innovation, and cultural spirit
- •The conversation ends with thanks and show credits
Publisher timestamps
- 0:00Why Hilton says he can be California’s next Republican governor
- 4:57Why Democrats should vote for HiltonRead this chapter
- 7:33Where Hilton disagrees with Trump on policyRead this chapter
- 9:32Navigating his relationship with TrumpRead this chapter
- 10:33California’s economy and affordabilityRead this chapter
- 15:21Hilton’s income tax relief plan
- 20:03How Trump’s policies affect CaliforniaRead this chapter
- 21:53Trump and election security
- 24:16Tech and Silicon Valley
- 39:30Expert question from Sarah Longwell
- 45:50On ending temporary protected status and DACA
- 48:18Hollywood
- 51:00Paramount/Warner Bros. merger
- 53:57Housing and homelessness
- 57:15Will Hilton stay in California if he loses?
