At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs.
That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices.
You can invest and trade on your own.
Plus, get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs.
With award -winning service, low costs, and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way.
At Schwab, visit schwab .com to learn more.
From The New York Times, this is The Interview.
I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro.
Last weekend, governors from both parties converged in Washington for their annual gathering.
As is traditional, they met with the president as a group.
As is not so traditional, President Trump took the opportunity to scold Maine's Democratic governor, Janet Mills, over her opposition to his executive order, banning transgender women from women's sports.
Are you not going to comply with it?
I'm complying with state and federal laws.
Well, we are the federal law.
Well, you better do it.
You better do it because you're not...
It was a pretty stunning exchange.
You better comply because otherwise you're not getting any federal funding.
See you in court. Every state...
Good. I'll see you in court.
I look forward to that.
That should be a real easy one.
That interaction is one example of the increasingly antagonistic relationship between the president and Democratic governors.
This time around, Trump is adopting a more punitive posture towards those he perceives as defying him.
And liberal governors now have to decide how to respond.
Among them, Maura Healy of Massachusetts.
Healy is a former civil rights lawyer who, in 2014, became the nation's first openly gay state attorney general.
In 2022, she won the governorship.
And while she may not have the same national profile as some of her colleagues, like J .B.
Pritzker of Illinois or Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, she's known as being deeply influential in the party behind closed doors.
So as part of a series of conversations I'm having with Democrats, I wanted to talk to Healy about how she views her role as the governor of a blue state in this second Trump term and how she thinks her party can wage an effective fight.
Here's my conversation with Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey.
Governor Healey, you just returned from D .C.
for the annual National Governors Association meeting.
And you attended an event with the president along with other governors.
What did you discuss with the other governors, both Democratic and Republican, while you were there?
Well, you go to the White House.
I've been as governor with other presidents.
I've been as attorney general.
And you go with the expectation that you're going to hear the president articulate some vision for the future.
It's supposed to be an opportunity to talk about how governors and states can work with a new administration.
That wasn't what this was about.
The meeting began with an address by Stephen Miller for about 15, 20 minutes.
And then later, the president came out and began by recounting that he's got the highest approval rating of anybody this early in his tenure, that he won the election not once, not twice, but three times.
And then continued with a litany of conspiracy theories and false information.
So it was unfortunate because I'm there as governor thinking, let's have a conversation about maybe where we can work together, right?
How can we focus on the needs of everyday Americans?
But unfortunately, we didn't see any of that.
What was also upsetting is that we saw him attack another governor.
This is something that— The governor of Maine.
The governor of Maine.
Now, this follows, remember, a few weeks ago he attacked Illinois and Governor Pritzker.
He attacked Governor Hochul in New York recently.
He's now very gratuitously, in a way it seemed very manufactured in the moment, attacked the governor of Maine.
And I should say this was about transgender rights and about his executive order to do with transgender rights.
And then he called her out.
Right. And then she responded, basically, that she would follow the laws of her state and the federal government and the federal government and that she would see him in court.
And that didn't seem to go down well.
No. And it was it was about transgender rights, but it wasn't about transgender rights.
He is doing what he has done typically, which is, I am going to throw out some issue, let that be the distraction, let that distract everyone from the fact that my poll numbers are tanking, people don't like what Elon Musk and Doge are doing, and let's get everybody's eye off the ball.
So let me go pick on this particular governor about an action that she hasn't even taken.
She has not even taken an action around transgender issues, and yet he manufactures something And she appropriately says, I'm going to follow state and federal law, Mr.
President, which I think is the right answer of you want your electeds to follow state and federal law.
What I saw is so upsetting in that exchange was when he looked at her and I was sitting at the table and he leered at her and he said, we are the federal law.
We are the federal law.
And what did you hear when he said that?
I heard somebody who thinks he's king.
Congress makes the laws.
I may not agree with everything Congress does, but that's a democracy.
That's how our system works.
Congress makes the laws.
The judiciary enforces the laws and determines the application of the law.
And the executive, and I'm an executive, my job is to faithfully apply and execute the law, right?
And so that's a problem.
He doesn't believe that Congress makes the law.
he believes that he makes the law.
That's what he said.
The other thing he said as you will see no federal funding, which, you know, again, is counter to the way our system operates, which is, you know, Congress appropriates funds.
Congress debates and figures out, you know, where funding's going to go.
And the idea that he's going to withhold weaponized funding is terrible.
What was the feeling afterwards among the Democratic governors in particular after that exchange?
You know, I feel a lot of anger.
I feel anger for the people I am elected to serve.
And I think a lot of us feel that.
And so as governor, I am focused on delivering for people here.
How do I lower their costs?
How do I build more homes?
How do I lower taxes?
How do I make sure that kids are educated, that our communities are safe, right?
That our veterans are taken care of.
And in the face of that, we have Donald Trump, who's teamed up with his co -king, co -president, Elon Musk.
That also became quite clear.
And they are doing everything, it seems, to cut jobs.
Look at all the layoffs.
And remember, a third of the federal employee workforce are veterans.
And they've been laid off, let go, fired by the tens of thousands.
They're also doing everything they can to increase costs, it seems.
Tariffs, which would be devastating, going to raise the price of everything that we buy and rely on.
So they are acting in ways that are diametrically opposed to what we're trying to do as governors, causing a lot of hurt, a lot of chaos.
I'll give you an example, Lulu.
Massachusetts, we're home to life sciences.
There is a ton of research and innovation.
we're number one in healthcare and here within Massachusetts we depend on funding from the National Institute of Health as do a lot of states so called red states and blue states he wants to cut all of that which means that people who right now are researching the cure for your child if they get cancer
or researching the cure the treatment for Alzheimer's are no longer going to have access to that funding.
That's outrageous. Governor, one of the reasons I wanted to talk to you is because I am interested to know how Democratic governors are seeing this moment and how to maneuver in the second Trump era.
Until now, you've been not as publicly combative as perhaps other governors have been.
And I'm wondering if that's because Donald Trump is seemingly more willing to be punitive or is it because his policies have been popular?
I mean, what are you weighing when you're thinking about how to talk about this administration?
Look, I was attorney general throughout the Trump one presidency and joined and led many cases suing him.
So I'm not unfamiliar with the way he operates.
It's incredibly important for AGs to continue to be in the courts.
They, like we, back during Trump 1, are having success.
How I look at things as it's been consistent for me.
If the president is going to work and support the state of Massachusetts, I will work with the president and the federal administration.
When he is not, then I will be the first to stand up and fight for the people of Massachusetts.
I think that is probably the attitude of most Democratic governors, at least.
You, of course, were AG.
You have direct experience with this.
I am curious if you really do think that how the AGs are operating, if it's the best way, because, for example, you were accused of politicizing the AG's office by jumping into national issues.
It's something that is often said about AGs.
And that was in the first Trump administration.
Then under Biden, you had Republican AGs adopting that model, you know, going after things that Biden did, and now again, we have these group filings from multiple states targeting executive actions.
It's become this kind of pattern, and I'm curious, do you think that AGs should be getting in these federal fights so consistently?
I think the premise of that question is totally off.
Tell me why. And I think the notion that these are, quote, political fights is totally off.
When I brought suits as an attorney general and when other AGs I worked with brought suits, because a lot of these were multi -state suits, why were they multi -state suits?
Why were a bunch of AGs joining in the same lawsuit?
It's because there was some action taken by Trump during Trump 1 that hurt people in our states.
As attorney general, you're there to represent the people of your state, to protect their interests and to protect their rights.
So when somebody like Donald Trump illegally cuts off access to health care, violates the law, of course your AG can and should sue.
That's not a political issue.
That's an attorney general doing his or her job vindicating the rights.
And you saw Republicans do the same, obviously, during the Biden administration.
And they would argue that they were doing the same thing.
They can argue that.
They can argue that.
I will tell you, having worked with many Republican colleagues, I will tell you what those fights were about.
They were fights to gum up the works, to slow things down.
They didn't like some of the policymaking that was going on.
They didn't like the fact that EPA was out there promoting and promulgating new regulations, for example.
And so they tried to find ways to slow that down.
I'm not saying, you know, in every instance it was frivolous, But there's a reason why Democratic AGs won over 85 percent of those cases during Trump won.
We were right. And I think that's what you're going to see again now with Trump, too.
Now, the courts have changed some.
So how this ultimately plays out.
I was about to say, are you confident that the courts can actually constrain this administration?
Well, I have great hope in the courts.
You know, they're an important institution.
They're one of our pillars of government.
So I want to remain ever optimistic about the role of and the responsibility of the judiciary.
I can't predict how it's going to go.
But those lawsuits where there's a violation of the law, those AGs need to continue to sue.
And that's not political.
It's about doing their job in vindicating people's rights in their states.
But it's not just up to the AGs.
I think about senators like Chris Murphy and Brian Shetz, you know, out there just articulating just in very real terms what the harm of Trump's actions are to everyday Americans.
You see more and more Americans speaking up, too.
And that's really, really important because I think it's been overwhelming for a lot of people.
I mean, it's only been a month.
Right. And people have been hit with a lot.
But it did seem to catch Democrats by surprise.
I mean, we have seen Democrats take a beat and have trouble coming to an agreement about what kind of resistance or opposition they're going to pose.
You've talked a little bit about what's happening publicly.
I'm curious what has been happening privately, because one of my colleagues reported that you were part of a group of Democratic governors in January who privately urged Senator Chuck Schumer to fight harder or at least differently against Trump.
And I'm curious, like what you were wanting to see that you weren't seeing?
I thought at the outset it was very important for leadership in Congress, leadership in Congress, to be out every day with members talking about the things that Trump is doing.
Why? Because what he's been doing from the beginning is taking away Congress's power.
Like, all of his action has been him saying basically, Congress, I know, maybe he doesn't know, Congress, you're supposed to make the law.
But no, I'm making the law now.
I am usurping your authority.
I am appropriating congressional authority, which is why I thought at the outset, Congress and members of Congress each day have got to be out there explaining to the American people and everyday Americans, this isn't right.
This isn't legal. They needed to be speaking up to that.
Do you think the leadership in Congress is the right leadership to enact what you're envisioning?
Look, I'll leave that for members of Congress to decide, right?
I mean, I'm a governor.
That's not my call.
What I can tell you is we need leadership that is aggressive, that is proactive, and that is speaking to everyday Americans.
That sounds like you're eliding the question.
I don't mean to elide anything.
I'll say that, you know, I think part of what got the Democratic Party in trouble this last election is the fact that there was a perception that leaders within the Democratic Party were not actually seeing and feeling people's pain.
I think there's a perception that, and I think it lived out to a certain extent among Democratic leadership, that they just didn't have their finger on the pulse.
They're talking about issues that weren't bread and butter, core economic issues that resonate.
They allowed themselves in some ways to be caricatured as only caring about X, Y, and Z issue, which isn't true, by the way.
One of the reasons I wanted to talk to you is that I was told by quite a few Democrats that you are very influential in the party beyond your state.
And so as you have been having these conversations about moving the party forward, I did want to get your temperature on just the Democratic brand writ large, because polling is showing that the Democratic brand is really underwater.
regardless of what's happening with Donald Trump and what's happening in the White House.
The losses were steep in the last election.
You are the governor of a solidly blue state.
What was your big takeaway about why the Democrats did so badly?
Well, there's definitely a brand problem.
There's a big brand problem.
And, you know, I don't pretend to speak for the party, but I can tell you as a Democratic leader what I'm going to do, I'm going to focus on driving what I believe is a Democratic message.
Let's take this moment and redefine the brand.
To me, the Democratic brand should be about delivering for everyday Americans.
We have the chance to do that with the foil of Donald Trump, cutting all these programs, cutting our military, for God's sakes, to free up funding that'll pay for the tax cuts he wants to give to billionaires.
So what can we do as Democrats?
Where do I think we need to go if I was going to offer advice?
It's to every day tack towards and have your North Star be, what am I doing for everyday Americans?
But I'm curious, Governor, because, I mean, I think if you talk to any Democrat, the Biden administration on down, they would say that that was their focus.
I mean, you know, they would say that that is precisely what they did during the last four years.
They really tried to build up the economy out of a massive recession.
They, you know, tried to tackle inflation, etc., etc.
I am curious how you see that being different than what happened before.
I think there are differences.
I told President Biden directly a few years ago that he needed to be active on the border, that he should take executive action on the border, OK?
I knew that as an attorney general and as a former prosecutor.
There were things that could have been done, and I wish that he had done that.
So I also think it's important to fight back.
You know, when there was all this talk and denigration of DEI, I don't know why the response wasn't, you know what?
