Spencer Cox is comfortable bringing his faith to politics.
Here's what makes him uncomfortable.
Politics is replacing religion.
If I don't have any real friends, at least we can hate the same people together on Facebook or TikTok.
One diagnosis of a divided nation on a special edition of Up First from NPR News.
Utah's Republican governor wants to decline to vote for Donald Trump.
He then endorsed Trump, urging him to unify the country.
Has he?
I think if you were to ask him that question, he would say no.
Also, Cox supports nuclear power to drive AI data centers.
But what are the downsides?
Plumbers are going to do great.
Attorneys are going to do very poorly.
And we've never had that kind of technological disruption.
Stay with us.
We have a conversation with Utah Governor Spencer Cox on a special edition of Up First from NPR News.
Spencer Cox is the governor of Utah, where the activist Charlie Kirk was murdered in September.
Ladies and gentlemen, I get the microphone.
So Cox gave an update on the investigation and then said a little more.
Over the last 48 hours, I have been as angry as I have ever been, as sad as I have ever been.
He urged Americans to reflect on the path they've been following.
And I would encourage people to log off.
Turn off, touch grass, hug a family member, go out and do good in your community.
His words provoked a powerful reaction then.
So how does he think Americans are responding now?
We met with Governor Cox during an event that's on brand for him, a bipartisan meeting of the Western Governors Association in Arizona.
Governor I want to note this is the second time that you've welcomed me to this conference of governors and it's great to be here.
So thanks for having me over.
Thank you, and welcome back.
The Western governors always enjoy having you here, Steve.
It's really great to be here and great to watch you work.
I want to follow up on a moment in September when you were very much in the news.
You made remarks about the criminal investigation into the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
And, in addition to giving the details that you had, you also, I think, had a message for all of us.
Spoke to larger issues.
Why do you think it was important to do that?
Well, it was obviously a terrible time in our nation's history, a tragic day for the Kirk family.
And for our state in particular, we felt vulnerable, betrayed, and just really down at that moment.
And it felt like a potential pivot point in our history.
As a student of history, I've read about political assassinations in the past and I've watched the documentaries.
I've seen kind of what was happening in those times, in 1968, 1969 and just for a year and a half, almost two years prior to that, I had been on this quest to learn about and talk about depolarization and what was happening in our country.
And it just felt like all of those things came together in that exact moment.
And just an opportunity to share my perspective, to speak to my fellow Utahns and hopefully my fellow Americans and anybody who was interested in listening that we can make a choice as a country.
And we have to decide, is this an off-ramp?
Are we going to take an off-ramp or are we going to continue to hate each other and foment that type of tribalism that leads to these very dark deeds and evil moments?
Have you seen any signs that anybody's taking the off-ramp?
Yeah, I actually have.
I was shocked at the response um, from from that moment, you know it was, it was just another press conference.
But here we are now, months later and uh, and the response continues to be overwhelmingly positive, hearing it from from all corners of of the nation, of people who are desperate for something different and and hopeful that uh, that there is an opportunity to change.
I i can tell you, just Two days ago I had a mom come up to me and she said I had a student at UVU and one at Utah State University.
She said, my husband as well.
They were very impacted by this.
She said, but I have to tell you, I've seen a change in them.
She said, my son said, I need to be a better person.
I want to do something different with my life.
I want to work harder and try to be better.
I didn't expect that. stuff like that to be happening.
But those are the kinds of experiences and conversations that are happening around kitchen tables all across our country.
And it's not just here.
That's the other thing that's really surprised me.
We had a trade mission to New Zealand and Australia.
And everywhere we went, they were following the assassination and what was happening afterwards as closely as we are here in the United States.
And Everywhere we went they were talking about how they also needed to find common ground and find ways to depolarize their own politics in their country.
There also has been another response from time to time.
I'm thinking of a particular event.
It was the TPUSA, Turning Point USA event, the first one after Kirk's assassination.
You appeared.
You were introduced.
Not all, but some of the audience booed.
Sure.
What do you think that booing represents?
Well, first of all, I love that we live in a country where you can do that.
That's really important.
And I think that's what Charlie stood for as well.
We should go into places where maybe people disagree with us.
I mean, in this case the disagreement is And I think that booing was very particular to some decisions I had made as governor of Utah that Charlie disagreed with, and that was okay.
I always encourage people who only – and, of course, the media only reported on that part.
I encouraged them to go watch the entire thing because there were no boos by the end of that.
And I think that, again, it's important to have those conversations.
But that's the very thing that this assassination – makes so appalling is that there is now fear for people to go into a situation like that, with a large crowd, where people are going to disagree with you.
And that hampers our speech.
It hampers our ability to persuade.
It hampers our ability to get anything done in this country.
And that's why the assassination wasn't just an attack on Charlie Kirk or his family.
It was an attack on every single American, whether you agreed with him or not.
And it's why we have to speak out.
When you said that people disagreed with you about a decision you made as governor.
Are you talking about your— positions on trans athletes a couple of years ago?
I think that's one that Charlie had been the most concerned about for sure.
And I'll just remind people, you vetoed a bill that would ban trans students in sports going across the gender they were assigned at birth.
The veto was overridden.
And you said at the time that your reasoning was that it was just four athletes.
Why pick on four kids?
Has your position changed?
Well, yes and no.
And what I would say is, if you go back and read the whole letter again, people focus just on the last piece of this.
It wasn't just that there were four athletes.
It was that we had actually worked on something that would protect women's sports, that would have prevented the vast majority of any transgender athletes from attempting if there were any attempting to play sports.
And And by the way, that actually bore out.
So the problem with the bill was it was passed in the last minute.
There were no public hearings on it, the ban.
And we had compromised.
We worked for a year to get something done, which was this commission that would protect women's sports.
Yeah.
Also, it would have bankrupted the High School Athletic Association and the school district that got sued.
And I knew that would happen.
I also knew a judge was never going to let that ban go into effect.
So we were going to spend millions of dollars on a lawsuit that didn't make any sense, when we had something that would protect women's sports?
All of that proved true, by the way.
We did protect women's sports, which was important to me.
I said in that very letter that what had happened with the swimmer at Penn should not happen.
We can't have dominators.
Men coming in, transitioning, and dominating women's sports.
That can't be allowed.
And so, yes, what we did worked.
I wish I would have had an opportunity to talk to Charlie about that.
I never got that opportunity.
But again, when I explain that to the crowd, I think their position changed.
Are we hearing here your political brand or what you would like it to be?
You're a conservative.
You're the leader of a conservative state.
You pursue conservative policies.
But you also make room for other people, or want to make room for other people, for other people, and be practical or pragmatic.
Am I describing it how you'd wanna do it?
100%, that's my brand, but I also just think that's the story of America.
That was the founder's brand.
That's how we got this constitution.
That's how it's always worked.
The most successful political leaders in the history of our nation led that way.
They had very strong principles that they believed in.
They listened to other people.
They tried to find ways to get things done.
And the way Under the Constitution, the only way we can get things done is by working together.
It forces us to work together.
We keep thinking if we just win this election, we'll never have to work with those people.
And the Constitution, as Yuval Levin writes so eloquently, says that we will always have to work with those people.
That's how this gets done.
We have to build coalitions.
In your speech after the assassination, you also said there is one person responsible for this act.
Words are not violence.
But, and you went on to say some other things.
And I felt in that moment you were giving one message, perhaps to the political left and maybe a slightly different one to the political right.
What were you trying to say?
Well, look, it's very easy to demonize entire groups of people.
It's easy to win elections when you do that.
It's easy to get people on your side by tearing other people down.
But I don't think that's a long-term strategy.
I don't think it's particularly effective.
And it also happens to not be true.
I mean the vast majority of Democrats that I know—in fact, every single Democrat I know that I talk to about this— was just appalled by what happened.
Deeply sad.
And I'm talking about elected leaders, my fellow governors and others who who reached out to me in the aftermath of that and expressed their deep condolences and concern over what happened.
And so to try to use that for political gain is not something that I was interested in.
I think it's important.
I mentioned in my faith, we believe in agency.
We believe that we are responsible for our own decisions and that other people aren't responsible for those.
And so to try to attack an entire group of people or an ideology because of one person isn't right and isn't fair.
And certainly the left hasn't cornered the market on political violence.
There have been instances of political violence on the right over the past few years as well.
And I think we're stronger when we all speak out against that.
And that's what I was trying to explain.
What did you think about in the days afterward when the administration said they were going to investigate liberal groups for encouraging violence, or however they would phrase it?
Sure.
Look.
If there are groups out there that are encouraging that type of violence, then we should hold them accountable.
I have no problem with that as well. at all.
But again, for me it's just important that we focus on who did this, holding that person accountable and then doing what we can to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
And one of the ways I think we can try to make this not happen again is by showing our ability to work together to solve problems.
I think people are very, they've lost trust in government for lots of different reasons.
And I believe that that lack of faith and trust in government is harmful for all of us.
And then as the rancor builds, it encourages the fringes to act out.
We use words like we got to go to battle, we got to go to war against the other side.
And that's okay.
I mean, you know, we use it in sports as well.
We don't literally mean that we're going to battle, right?
We're not actually going to kill the other side.
But when there are some people who hear that kind of rhetoric and as the rhetoric gets heightened, then they feel like they need to act out on that.
And that's an incredibly dangerous environment to be acting in.
Now here's one thing Spencer Cox knows well, because he is in government.
Many Americans distrust their government, and after a break we'll ask why.
We also ask how he fits his faith into politics.
This message comes from Mattress Firm.
Restless partner keeping you up?
Or maybe it's your pet or kids climbing into bed.
Those constant movements can make it hard to get the rest you need.
Mattress Firm's sleep experts will match you with a bed for deeper rest, like a Tempur-Pedic.
Its unique temper material absorbs motion for undisturbed rest.
Shop Mattress Firm's Black Friday sale and save up to 500 on select Tempur-Pedic adjustable mattress sets with next-day delivery.
Restrictions apply.
See mattressfirm.com or a store for details.
Support for this podcast and the following message come from Strawberryme, a dedicated coach in your corner, and get 50 off your first coaching session at strawberryme slash NPR.
Why do you think we've lost trust in government?
There are lots of different reasons.
I think the biggest one is that government is not delivering on the promises that we've made to people.
If you look at the cost of living across the country, particularly housing, that's one area that I'm very focused on.
If government says they're going to do these things, we used to be a country of builders.
We used to build big things and we could build them very quickly.
I always like to say that we built the Empire State Building in 13 months.
You can get a permit to build a building like that in three years anymore, let alone actually build it.
We built an interstate highway system.
We built These giant dams that power the West and provide drinking water to states like Utah and Arizona and California.
And now we don't do any of that stuff.
And so people are just losing their faith when we make promises that we don't keep.
And they're looking for government to start functioning again.
And I'm grateful that there is again.
If I'm looking for hope, I'm starting to see this now with my friends on the left, my fellow governors.
There's kind of a nascent abundance movement that is coming together, which I think is really important that we have to start building again.
I was thinking about this as you're talking.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You're sounding like progressives who are saying we've Well, I'd like to see.
The progressives are sounding like conservatives, who've been saying this for decades now and they're starting to agree.
I mean, I've been pleading for permitting reform, NEPA reform and a well-meaning law passed in the 70s the Environmental Protection Act.
That was supposed to protect the environment and it did until – until people started taking advantage of things that were never intended in there and now making it impossible to do anything.
Even the green projects that the environmental community wants to build, they can't build anymore because this law doesn't allow it to happen.
And so that permitting reform now we're getting bipartisan support for.
After begging for it for years.
Other people are starting to listen now and we think we could actually get something done.
And that's where I think it's important that this –
This movement.
I don't agree with everything that the progressive abundance movement is trying to do, but there are parts of it that are amazing and we should find ways to work together on that.
And that's what we're doing here at the Western Governors Association today.
My entire initiative is around energy superabundance.
We need more energy in this country as well.
Energy prices are starting to spike.
The AI revolution is happening, whether we You like it or not, it's out there and it's happening.
And we have to build more energy in this country.
That's not a partisan thing anymore.
I've been saying it for years on the right.
Now the left is agreeing with that.
So let's find ways to build more energy together.
And I'm going to ask in a moment about your energy agenda.
I want to ask something, though, first about President Trump.
Some people will know, you did not vote for the president in 2016, did not vote for him in 2020 and then endorsed him in 2024 in a way that's particularly meaningful for our discussion.
If I can summarize after the assassination attempt in Butler Pennsylvania, you said the president's survival was a miracle and spoke to him directly and said only you can unify the country now.
And on that basis, you endorsed him.
Has he?
I think if you were to ask him that question, he would say no.
I don't think that's happened for sure.
I think the polling would bear that out.
That has not been it.
And yet, I have an opportunity to have a relationship with the president.
And I think that's very important to me.
It's very important to Utahns.
I will tell you that, after that press conference that you referred to earlier, he was one of the first people to call me.
We talked for 20-plus minutes at both the beginning of the call and the end of the call.
He told me how much he appreciated that press conference, especially the part at the end, which was the part that you and I are talking about.
Now again, he hasn't modeled that and he sees the world a little differently than I do on this aspect, and I appreciate that.
We don't agree on everything.
We disagree on this piece, but at least I can have a conversation with him and at least he's willing.
Again, he appreciated what I said and that meant something in that moment.
If he can watch you and appreciate and understand what you were doing, why do you think he doesn't?
Well again, I think our worldviews are just a little bit differently on what we're trying to accomplish, what we feel the greatest threats are to our country right now.
And yet when he had an opportunity to push back on me, he didn't do that.
He said, I agree with Governor Cox 100%.
And that's something.
That's something, and it's something I'm proud of.
I'm grateful for the relationship I have with him.
The difference in the worldview is that he sees his political adversaries as enemies.
There was this interesting moment in the Charlie Kirk Memorial.
I was here.
We're in Arizona right now.
And you heard Erica Kirk forgive the shooter.
One of the most powerful, most Christian moments I had ever experienced.
And then there's this very revealing moment, the president, and he got panned for this.
I actually give him credit for it where he said Charlie's always trying to get me to forgive my enemies.
And he said, I just can't do that.
And he said, I know Charlie's going to be mad at me.
I know Erica's going to get mad at me.
And you could just see that that's foreshadowing.
Kind of the way he was raised.
It's his worldview is that we don't do that.
And so I appreciated his honesty in that moment.
And again, I think it speaks to a difference philosophically that he and I both have.
You appreciated that he said it.
And I appreciate that he owned it.
I appreciate that he said, I know Charlie and Erica are going to disagree with me at this.
You know, at a memorial service and he would tell you, if you were sitting here today, that he and I disagree on that point.
I believe that we are commanded to forgive our enemies, that it's part of our formation, of who we are.
It doesn't mean we have to agree with them.
It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held accountable.
But it does mean that for our own sake, it's something that we have to do.
Because you say we are commanded, I want to ask, how much does your faith inform your politics?
My faith is core to my politics.
I think we make a mistake in this country.
We talk about a separation of church and state, which is very important, and I believe in that.
I believe that that was mostly intended for government not to interfere with religion institutions.
It doesn't mean we have to separate our faith from our politics personhood, in public service or in any other way.
I think it's more important that the voters that I speak to know that I'm informed by my faith, that it's very important to me.
I'm going to be very transparent about that.
This is who I am.
I'm never going to lie about it.
And if you don't like that, you shouldn't vote for me.
That's okay.
That's important.
But I'm not going to take to check my faith at the door because it's just who I am and it's impossible for me to separate that.
So when Jesus tells me, by the way, I think this is the hardest commandment in all of Christianity.
It's not just that we're supposed to forgive our enemies, but it's to love our enemies and to do good to them, who hate us and despitefully use us.
It's not enough to just say I forgive you, but I'm actually supposed to love you and I'm supposed to do good to you, even though you do terrible things to me.
Man, that's hard.
And this idea of bridge building and being a peaceable follower of Christ, a peacekeeper.
These things are hard.
They're so hard.
Some people think it's a weakness.
I think it's the exact opposite.
I think it's the hardest thing in life.
It strikes me in some ways is also the definition of your job, because you're elected by not everybody.
Not everybody votes for you.
But the guy who hated you the most.
You're still supposed to deliver for them and make the roads work and the schools work and anything else that you do.
I say that all the time.
I was elected by Republicans, but I'm not I'm not the Republican governor.
I'm not the governor of the Republicans.
I'm the governor of the state of Utah, which means there has to be a seat at the table for everyone.
It means everyone should get an opportunity to share their thoughts and their ideas.
Ultimately, I have to make some decisions.
And sometimes those decisions are binary.
Sometimes it's just, it is, I have to choose this or that.
A lot of times though, So there's room for understanding.
There's opportunity to try to do things a little bit different way, so that there are some win-wins out there.
I think there are far too many false choices that we're presented with, that everything is a zero-sum game and it's not a zero-sum game.
We don't believe that in Utah.
I don't believe that.
I believe that we can find ways for everybody to benefit and lift everyone up, even if they don't like us, even if they didn't vote for me.
I'm still their governor.
When I hear you talking with your fellow governors, who are in the other party in some cases I hear that, by the way.
But I want to ask about religion and politics in this way also.
You're saying it's okay to bring your faith to the table.
It's inevitable, and you should.
Are there also red lines, like something that your faith commands you that you should not be imposing on?
Well, I think the red lines are when we exclude faiths or people who are not of faith.
We should treat everyone the same.
That's the important part.
That's what the Constitution requires.
Is that just because I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I can't favor members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over other religions or people of no religion?
Those are red lines that we absolutely can never cross.
We have to treat everybody exactly the same, and that's what I believe in.
Um, and I'm thinking about somebody who's very much in the news right now, Zoran Mandani.
Would you say the reason to have a disagreement with him if you do is over his policies and not over his faith.
100%.
I will never have a disagreement with him over his faith.
If his faith leads him to policies that I disagree with, that's where we're going to have those disagreements.
Uh, We have an incredible Muslim community.
We have an incredible Jewish community in Utah.
I work very closely with both of them.
They work very closely with each other.
We try to unify and bring faiths together to solve problems.
And that's the America that I grew up in.
It's America I believe in.
We are a pluralistic society.
The idea of America is that everyone is welcome.
And we air our disagreements through, again, the strictures of the Constitution.
We mentioned that Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah, was at a meeting of the Western Governors Association.
Regardless of party, the governors have focused on energy.
And in a moment we'll examine Cox's determination to promote energy for a specific use data centers for artificial intelligence.
What are the downsides?
Stay with us.
This message comes from PACA.
Everyone's got that one hoodie they practically live in.
But the Packa hoodie, it's on another level.
Softer than cashmere, warmer than wool and still breathable, this alpaca fiber hoodie goes from airport to mountain trail to couch without missing a beat.
And right now, for a limited time.
You'll get 30 off when you purchase three or more items during their Black Friday Cyber Monday sale.
Now's the perfect time to level up your hoodie game at go.packaapparel.com slash NPR.
This message comes from Jackson.
Seek clarity in retirement planning at Jackson.com.
Jackson is short for Jackson Financial Inc.
Jackson National Life Insurance Company Lansing, Michigan and.
Jackson National Life Insurance Company of New York.
Purchase New York.
This message comes from Mint Mobile.
Starting at $15 a month, make the switch at mintmobile.com slash switch.
$45 upfront payment for three months.
Five gigabyte plan equivalent to $15 a month.
Taxes and fees extra.
First three months only.
See terms.
I want to come back to energy that we mentioned earlier.
What are you trying to do in Utah with nuclear power?
We're trying to build it and lots of it.
We were really good at this.
Again, back to my original point, back in the 50s and 60s, we built nuclear.
We built it better than anywhere else in the world.
We were the leaders in this technology clean technology, cheap technology and then we stopped doing it.
Basically, when I was born, we had built about 130 nuclear facilities in a very short amount of Lots of different reasons.
Some of them- Not having to do with your birth.
I hope my birth had nothing to do with this.
I am 50 this year.
But that's when we stopped.
And now you can't get a permit to build a nuclear facility in 12 years.
And yet we build 130 in 12 years.
So this is the mistake that we've made.
Other places in the world kept doing this and doing it very well.
We took a trip to France a couple years ago to learn from them.
The French have been better at this.
I was in Japan last year talking about their firing back up their nuclear plants.
And there's new technology.
The United States is again leading with new technology and ability to make these even safer the safest technology on earth, so that we can have an abundance of energy.
We have to change this.
It's happening. red states, blue states working together.
The federal government finally gets it.
They're working through the permitting process on nuclear as well.
We're working at every part of the supply chain to bring that back to Utah so that we can benefit from this amazing technology.
You think there will be new reactors in Utah in less than 12 years?
I absolutely do, yes.
It's going to take some help from the federal government, but we can do it.
We can get it done.
When we last spoke a year ago, you brought up nuclear power and you said one of the reasons for extra energy was data centers and AI, because they're expanding so massively.
Absolutely true that they need it.
What thoughts do you have about the downsides of the massive expansion both of data centers and artificial intelligence?
Yeah.
So the expansion of data centers, of course, is going to use a tremendous amount of energy.
So that's a concern because that's going to raise prices if we aren't doing this.
But it's a global arms race.
So I think we have to approach this with eyes wide open on both fronts.
The first is, if we don't do this, China and Russia are going to do it.
And so we have to be able to compete, or we are at a significant disadvantage, not just an economic disadvantage, but a true national security disadvantage.
We've seen it within the past week, There was a massive incursion led by Chinese AI into US systems.
And we have to be able to fight back.
So we have to encourage it there.
And there should be very little regulation there in the development of artificial intelligence.
Now, when it comes to the deployment of artificial intelligence as it impacts our kids and our families, our schools, the human flourishing piece of this, we should also be incredibly cautious.
I'm very worried about any type of federal incursion into states' abilities to regulate AI.
Again at the personal level,
We've seen how social media companies the most powerful companies in the history of the world have used this incredible tool to utterly destroy our kids and our families, their mental health, to use this in ways that have made them a lot of money and gotten people addicted to outrage.
We've seen the way it's destroyed our country.
So much of what is happening in our country is because of social media and the algorithms and TikTok and others that have been so dangerous and just awful for our kids and our families.
AI is going to be even worse.
We've already seen Meta talking about deploying these chatbots to our kids.
With sexual overtones and— You can get a teddy bear that will talk to you through AI.
That's exactly right.
And sometimes inappropriately so.
And look, we're lonelier than we've ever been before, and we're addicted to these devices.
We're not having conversations with our neighbors.
We're not hanging out in these third places.
Every psychiatrist, psychologist in this country will tell you that's unbelievably detrimental to our physical health and especially our mental health.
And now we're going to present flawed human beings, all of us, with these chatbots that will tell us everything we want to hear, that will make us feel good about everything.
There will be no friction and we'll never have to actually have a conversation with another human being.
And I can't think of anything more destructive.
And so There are great benefits, and we should use those.
Medical breakthroughs, technologies that are going to save lives and help us flourish.
And then there's this dark side.
And hopefully we've learned something over the past 12 years from the damage that social media has done.
And certainly in Utah, we're going to do everything we can to push back on those tools.
Pete Buttigieg, in an earlier interview in this series, raised this and talked about growing up in the Midwest where over the course of 20 or 30 years, most of the auto jobs disappeared and steal jobs and other kinds of jobs.
And it was a phenomenal social burden and social problem.
And he foresees possibly the same thing happening with AI, except not in 20 or 30 years, happening in three or four or five years.
Yeah.
Is that on your mind?
It absolutely is.
But can I tell you, there's one difference that I think Secretary Buttigieg didn't miss.
But Yes, it's going to take a lot of people's jobs.
But in the past, with technology changes, they were blue-collar jobs that were at risk.
And certainly in the auto manufacturing, steel mills, that was the case.
What we're looking at now are white-collar jobs.
So this is going to be very different.
Plumbers are going to do great.
Attorneys are going to do very poorly.
And we've never had that kind of technological disruption.
I don't know what that means.
I'm just pointing it out that it is going to impact a different segment of society than has in the past.
And that's going to make some people very uncomfortable who haven't had to deal with the working class.
I grew up in a very blue-collar area, grew up in an area where –
My friend's dads were coal miners, saw the difficulties that have come.
We saw opioid addiction skyrocket, deaths of despair. increase.
We've seen that, again, in some red states, some blue cities.
Now what happens in these high-tech areas where people have lived very affluently, now losing all of that?
What does that mean and what kind of disruption is that going to cause to our institutions?
Again, I don't know the answer, but I think we should be very nervous about the future.
And what we're trying to do in Utah is to adopt a human flourishing model around AI, to help companies understand that they have a responsibility not just to make money but to actually make sure that their products make human life better for all of us, and that we should be working closely together.
Are those efforts going to be overwhelmed though, if we're building more nuclear reactors, to build more data centers, to deploy more AI at an unbelievable speed, with billions and billions of dollars of investments?
Yeah.
Well, look, potentially.
But I
There are certain things we can do and certain things that are just impossible to do.
That investment is going to happen.
That building is going to happen somewhere no matter what.
And so we should make sure that it happens in the right way.
And that means that we have to be able to layer the regulatory scheme on top of that.
That makes sense.
Technology work for us.
We've gotten into this mode, I would say on both the right and left, where we've become subservient to technology.
Instead of technology serving us, we have become slaves to the technology.
And I think that's going to happen with AI if we're not very careful.
Fortunately, there are some people out there who are thinking about this who are smarter than I am.
I'm not an AI.
I'm not a data scientist.
But we've hired one of the best from one of our universities.
We've started an AI policy lab in Utah.
It's the first of its kind anywhere in the world where we have experts now in the government working directly with the companies to make sure their products are safe, passing legislation that gives them a safe harbor so that they can do what they want to do, as long as it protects our people.
So we're working together.
Because it's changing so quickly, these new models come out.
You could pass a piece of legislation that would be obsolete in three months because a new model has come out and it's completely different.
So we're never going to be able to keep up with this from a legislative perspective.
It's really going to have to be regulators working closely with the AI companies to make sure that we're protecting our people.
One other question. and you may already have partly answered it, but it's on my mind.
Why do you think it is that we live in the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world and yet so many people in this country feel unhappy or unheard, and even if they're happy with their own lives, they're constantly unhappy with the government.
Yeah, I think it's because we've lost connection.
And this goes back to a groundbreaking breaking book now almost 25 years ago.
It's crazy it's been that long, but Dr. Putnam at Harvard wrote a book called Bowling Alone.
Yeah, you're familiar with it, of course.
And found and again, this is all pre-social media, pre-AI that more people were bowling than ever before, but there were fewer bowling leagues and got interested in that.
And finding that we were becoming less social as a species.
Certainly here in the United States we had fewer friends than we ever had in the past.
And we are wired for connection.
And our history...
Our development requires us to have human interaction.
And when you take that away from people, really bad things start to happen.
Anxiety, depression, self-harm.
We're desperate for tribes, and so we start to find unhealthy tribes.
If we're not getting in in our neighborhoods, in our communities, in our congregations.
I speak a lot about Alexis de Tocqueville when he came here in the 1830s and he saw something unique in America.
We formed these associations to solve It wasn't government solving our problems.
We did that together in our communities, mostly religious, but not all religious.
I like to talk to these service organizations that we used to have that were so prevalent.
We had Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs were my favorite.
They were everywhere.
And now there's a bunch of old people and there are very few of them.
And they came together to solve problems.
Government wasn't solving all of the problems.
We were doing that in our neighborhoods, in our communities, in our congregations.
Now we're not doing that anymore.
We're less religious than we've ever been before.
Those organizations are disappearing.
Government becomes the organization of last resort to solve all of our problems.
And government was not designed to solve all of our problems.
I just mentioned with AI, my legislature meets for 45 days out of the year.
That's it.
And thank goodness it's not longer than that.
We need to come back together in our communities.
So if we're not doing that now, we're looking for tribes somewhere and we're finding that in politics.
Politics is replacing religion.
I always like to say if I don't have any real friends, at least we can hate the same people together on Facebook or TikTok.
And that's that's no replacement for true conversation, looking each other in the eye.
When we look each other in the eye, things happen in our brain.
There are certain chemicals that get released when we do that.
When we look at a phone, it's a different part of our brain that gets activated, a dangerous part of our brain that those dopamine hits, that get us addicted.
And so we're sad, we're angry, we're looking for something, we're There's more gambling.
There's more drug addiction, pornography.
We're finding replacements for society that aren't going to lead us to positive places.
And I think that's dangerous.
And that leads to things like Charlie Kirk getting assassinated.
Governor Cox, it's a pleasure talking with you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Steve.
This has been a special edition of Up First from NPR News.
The full video of this interview with the governor is at the NPR app and on YouTube.
This episode of Up First was edited by Arzu Rezvani, produced by Taylor Haney and Julie Deppenbrock.
We get engineering support from Jimmy Keeley and our executive producer is Jay Shaler.
This message comes from Mint Mobile.
At Mint Mobile, their favorite word is no.
No contracts, no monthly bills, no hidden fees.
Plans start at $15 a month.
Make the switch at mintmobile.com slash switch.
That's mintmobile.com slash switch.
Upfront payment of $45 for three-month 5GB plan required, equivalent to $15 a month.
New customer offer for first three months only, then full price plan options available.
Taxes and fees extra.
See Mint Mobile for details.
This message comes from Mint Mobile.
At Mint Mobile, their favorite word is no.
No contracts, no monthly bills, no hidden fees.
Plans start at $15 a month.
Make the switch at mintmobile.com slash switch.
That's mintmobile.com slash switch.
Upfront payment of $45 for 3-month 5GB plan required.
Equivalent to $15 a month.
New customer offer for first 3 months only.
Then full price plan options available.
Taxes and fees extra.
See Mint Mobile for details.
