The New York Times app has all this stuff that you may not have seen. The way the tabs are at the top with all of the different sections.

I can immediately navigate to something that matches what I'm feeling.

Play Wordle or Connections and then swipe over to read today's headlines. There's an article next to a recipe, next to games, and it's just easy to get everything in one place.

This app is essential.

The New York Times app, all of the times, all in one place.

Download it now at nytimes.

Com/stuff.

Com. App. From the New York Times, this is the interview. I'm Lulu García-Nvaro. Last weekend, governors from both parties surged 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 federal law. Well, we are the federal law.

Well, you better do it. You better do it because- It was a pretty stunning exchange. You better comply because otherwise you're not getting any federal funding. Every state... Good. I'll see you in court. I look forward to that. That should be a really 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 Healey of Massachusetts. Healey 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 Healey 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, Mori Healey. Governor Healey, you just returned from DC 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. 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 Steven Miller for about 15, 20 minutes. 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. It was unfortunate because on there as governor thinking, let's have a conversation about maybe where we can work together. How can we focus on the needs of everyday Americans? But unfortunately, we didn't see any of that. What 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.

We should say this was about transgender rights and about his executive order to do with transgender rights. Then he called her out, right? 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. 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. 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 as 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.

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. That's the 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, again, is counter to the way our system operates, which is Congress appropriates funds. Congress debates and figures out where funding is going to go. 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?

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. 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 community communities are safe, that our veterans are taken care of. 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. They are doing everything, it seems, to cut jobs. Look at all the layoffs. Remember, a third of the federal employee workforce are veterans, and they've been laid off, let go, fired by the tens of thousands. There 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. 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 health care. 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 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. I'm wondering if that's because Donald Trump is seemingly more willing to be punitive, or is it because his policies 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-1 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 one, 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 You are accused of politicizing the AG's office by jumping into national issues. It's something that is often said about AGs. That was in the first Trump administration. Then under Biden, you had Republican AGs adopting that model, going after things that Biden did. Now, again, we have these group filings from multiple states targeting executive actions. It's become this pattern. 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. 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 I 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. 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.

Then 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. There were fights to gum up the works, to slow things down. They didn't like some of the policy making that was going on. They didn't like the fact that EPA was out there promoting and promulgating new regulations, for example. They'd try to find ways to slow that down. I'm not saying in every instance it was frivolous, but there's a reason why Democratic AGs won over 85% 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. They're an important institution. They're one of our pillars of government. 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. 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 Shatz, who 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. That's really, really important because I think it's been overwhelming for a lot of people. It's only been a month, and people have been hit with a lot.

I did seem to catch Democrats by surprise. We have seen Democrats take a beat and have trouble coming to an agreement about what 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 urge Senator Chuck Schumer to fight harder or at least differently against Trump. I'm curious 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. 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, members 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. 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. I I think part of the reason- That sounds like you're eliding the question. I don't mean to elide anything. I'll say that 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. 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. 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 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? That's where 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 I think if you talk to any Democrat, the Biden administration on down, they would say that that was their focus. 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 tried to tackle inflation, et cetera. I am curious how you see that being different than what happened before.

I think there are differences. I told It was built, 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. 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. I also think it's important to fight back. When there was all this talk and denigration of DEI, I don't know why the response wasn't, You know what? It's actually good to have women and people of color in the military. It's good to to have women and people of color in the workforce. It's good to have women and people of color going to colleges and universities. What's wrong with that? And put it back on them instead of it being allowed to be this attenuated caricatured conversation about quote DEI. Some of it's about how you match the mischaracterization and how you match really offensive but effective attempts to strike down certain things or to pit people against each other. That's the thing. If you're getting bullied and you don't respond with force, the bully is going to win always.

We need people who are able to do that and to do that effectively and in a way that shows that we're actually aligned with the majority of Americans on this. I think that's a work in progress.

Do you blame part of the failure to defend the Democratic brand, to articulate the vision on the Biden administration? Because you were the first Democratic governor to publicly urge President Biden to exit the race in July of last year. How much do you think it hurt the party in voters' eyes that it seemed like Democrats were hiding President Biden's failing acuity?

I mean, I think that President Biden, the Biden administration, did so much for this country and pulled us through a pandemic, pulled us out of a really dark economic time, got us on really solid footing, did some incredible things. I think the party was hampered by having President Biden as the communicator-in-chief, if I'm being honest. He wasn't the strongest communicator-in-chief. That hurt us because they weren't able to sell all of the important accomplishments that were actually, in fact, happening effectively or as effectively. That definitely hurt.

Do you think the party is adequately reckoning now with the effects of what happened, though? Because I just saw one of Biden's senior advisors, Mike Donovan, say that the Democratic Party, quote, lost its mind after Biden's poor debate and basically threw an incumbent under the bus and that cost them the election.

I hadn't seen that comment. Are we grappling with what happened and having to deal with it right now? You better believe it. We've got Donald Trump in the White House. But I've talked before about this in my views about President Biden, and I think it was very hard for Kamala Harris, who I thought ran a fantastic campaign, to be able to overcome the disadvantage at the time and within the time that she was allotted. I I think it would have been a different story if the President had decided a few years ago that he was going to do what he said he would do, which is to serve one term, and then we'd have the opportunity for full engagement in a primary and the like. That didn't happen. I have no interest in further spending time on it, revisiting history. I'm focused on the now. After the break, I asked Governor Healey about the migrant crisis that has played out during her time in office.

We talk more about the Trump administration's campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion.

It's interesting at a time when the co-president, Elon Musk is giving us Hitler salutes and espousing anti-Semitic things. I just find it ironic that we're going to have this debate over DEI and whether it's effective. All the while, this is going on over here. I mean, seriously?

New York Times cooking saves me time because the instructions are so clear, so simple. There's not a day I do not open the app.

The salmon curry, right? Just coconut milk, some greens, throw some salmon in, and 25 minutes later, you have something I would have probably never made before.

The perfect chocolate, chocolate chip cookies, those are to die for. Those little tiny snapshots, they make the mouth water a little bit.

I always read all the comments for what people are substituting.

So I just put in gluten free, and all of the comments that have gluten free in there comes up.

Low-key, one of my favorite parts about the app is the screen stays on while you're cooking.

Every time I open the app, there are brand new recipes. They all look phenomenal, and they've never disappointed.

If I didn't have New York Times cooking app, I'll be lost. That's true story. Hey, it's Eric Kim from New York Times cooking. Come cook with us. Go nytcooking. Com.

Governor Healey, the number two issue in your state, according to polling, is immigration, which is something that has plagued Democrats in the last election. 2023 was the year where states like yours saw a big surge. That's also when you became governor. Can you tell me how you've seen this particular issue play out?

Yeah, you're right about the timing of it. I think that in the year before I took office, we'd seen the first influx of migrants into certain states. We're home to a significant Haitian diaspora here in Massachusetts. There are a number of Haitians coming into Massachusetts. This was something that I inherited. It was underway when I became governor, and it only grew during the first year or so of my administration. It goes back to something fundamental. We have not had comprehensive immigration reform in this country. We need it. I was so upset when Donald Trump killed that border bill, which would have provided a pathway for our dreamers, would have provided a pathway for people who are living here, working here, raising kids here, paying taxes here to become citizens. It also would have provided the kinds of resources for more border agents, more immigration judges, more resources at intercepting fentanyl and other drugs from coming into the country. It's been a challenging situation, to say the least, and my frustration has been as a state governor, I am inheriting the problems caused by federal inaction, and federal inaction, specifically on the border and on immigration.

One of the most visible strategies Republican governors adopted during the height of the migrant crisis was sending busses and planes of migrants to blue states like yours. Very memorably, Martha's Vineyard. It was a stunt, but you could argue that it worked. It made immigration enforcement into a blue state issue, which it had not been. Shouldn't it always have been, though? I mean, is it not fair to say that Democrats really did not take this issue seriously?

I don't know. I mean, I don't see it that way. I think Democrats in Congress were the ones who time after time, were pushing for immigration reform. That's what I saw. It was a stunt. It was a stunt what happened. I think the busses, the busses to New York, to Illinois, to Colorado. I think the did a really effective job of making this an issue, and frankly, of scaring a lot of people. Massachusetts, we're ranked the safest state in the country. It doesn't mean that we don't have ongoing law enforcement work. We do, and that's the reason why it is so safe. We just had a takedown of a gang here a week or two ago, including a gang that has recently been cited by the new ICE director. It's also the case here with the migrants who came in. By the way, they were fleeing the worst conditions imaginable. I saw them. I met with many of them. We got them work authorizations. They're working, they're paying taxes. These are all people with lawful status now. Their kids are going to school. They're contributing to our economy. They're working in our hospitals and nursing homes.

That's what I chose to do. Ron DeSantis chose to put people on a plane and use them. Greg Abbott chose to put people on busses and use them to make a point. I'll tell you the difference of being a Democratic governor. We actually found a way to take care of these people, get them jobs, get them working, and get them contributing to our economies.

And a poll just came out from UMass and WCBV showing that immigration is very important to people here, and a majority of voters don't approve of the way that you've handled it. Why do you think that is? There's just a lack of trust, generally.

There's a lack of trust, and it's hard to overcome fear mongering that's gone on. The number of people in what our emergency shelter system here in Massachusetts now. See, to zoom out, we're the only state in the country that has what's called a right to shelter law that houses women and children and families who are experiencing homelessness. As a result, the law has required us to take in numbers, including migrants who've arrived here as homeless. I've recently made proposals to the legislature to change that, but it's been a challenging situation. I'll say, though, that even within that system, the majority of folks in that system are actually Massachusetts families. They're not new immigrant families, okay? But it's about what the public perception is, and all I can do is try to manage my way through it.

I mean, you've said before that the right to shelter law wasn't actually made to help waves and waves of people settle here, and you are now seeking to change it. I am curious, why did you come to that decision? Because I think what you're trying to do, among other things, is require anyone seeking shelter to prove that they're in the country legally. Is that one of the changes that you're trying to make to the law?

I think that what we're focused on is really about your... Have you been living in Massachusetts, or did you just get evicted from your apartment in Pennsylvania, and you got on a bus and drove up here? Our law is meant to actually take a family who, for one reason or another, in Massachusetts, became homeless, not to be a refuge for people from other states who, sadly, and with compassion, I say this, became homeless and then come to Massachusetts to get housing. That's not the point of the law.

As you know, Trump's borders are Tom Homan singled Boston out at CPAC last week. He called out Boston's police commissioner who said, Because of state law, he won't be enforcing immigration orders against migrants. Homan then said, and I'm quoting here, I'm coming to Boston and bringing hell with me. I'm wondering what your response to that is.

First of all, I don't really even know what he's talking about, to be honest. Again, I'm somebody who's state police, regularly work with Homeland Security, ATF, FBI, DEA, on the investigation and prosecution of folks, including folks who are undocumented, who have and are committing crimes, drug trafficking, gun trafficking, human trafficking. That was the way before Trump. It will be the way after Trump. I don't really know what he's referring to in terms of or why he singled out Boston.

Again, I think your police commissioner said basically that they weren't going to help ICE remove people with orders of removal, as happens in many sanctuary cities.

We're not... That's the thing. I think there's a lot of talk and semantics out there, and this guy, Holman, is just, as a lot in the Trump administration do, just making up a bunch of stuff and trying to start them, trying to pick a fight. Look, that's not productive. Because as a former law enforcement official, if you care about law enforcement, the best way to secure the safety and well-being of community states, our nation, is for local state federal law enforcement to work together. It seems to me you shouldn't be threatening to bring, what was it? Hell? Yeah. Okay, whatever. No, you should come here with support and resources to help us address any public safety issues we're experiencing. You should do that with other states. I can tell you that Massachusetts law enforcement, state and local, continue to work with federal law enforcement when it comes to the investigation and the prosecution and the apprehension of criminals. The real thing that's going on at ICE is that the numbers have gone down at the border. The crossings at the border were going down during the end of the Biden administration, in fact. I think they're scrambling to figure out how they can keep this going.

Wasn't there reports just today of the number of National Guard people on the border sitting around doing nothing? I mean, let's put people to work. We've got governors who are dealing with severe floods, severe fires. There's plenty of places that we need federal resources and help, as states.

Would you meet Tom Holman if he came?

Of course I would. Yeah, it sounds like I might need to explain a few things to him as somebody who investigated and prosecuted crimes, including with federal authorities for a number of years here. Maybe he doesn't have the benefit of that knowledge.

Another place where the federal and state governments are linked is on education President Trump has made rolling back DEI, which is diversity, equity, and inclusion, central to his political project. He has said now that he's going to be cutting federal funding for schools that include it. We don't know exactly what that means. It's open to interpretation. You've said that Massachusetts schools are going to stay true to themselves. What do you mean by that?

We're going to keep doing what we're doing. Look, I am the first woman in Massachusetts history to be elected governor. I happen to be the first gay person elected governor. I don't know where I would be if I didn't have support and legal protections against discrimination my entire life. I'm born in 1971, so just around the time of Title IX. I had a career as an athlete and a professional athlete, basketball player before I went to law school. I think about all that was made possible for me as a woman because there were state and federal laws in place that said, You know what? We should treat everybody fairly. It doesn't matter your gender. It doesn't matter the color of your skin, your religion. I think that's an American principle. I'm not giving up on that, even if it means pulling federal funding. I just think enough people need to continue to speak out and speak to why that's such a bad thing. Talk to any CEO, Fortune 500 company. They'll tell you that their bottom line, dollar-wise, does better when there's more diversity in the room. But many of these- That's not a bad thing.

It's a good thing. It's made us stronger.

Many of these companies, though, are ditching their DEI programs.

I don't know why. I mean, I think I know why. I think that they feel the threat of Elon Musk. They feel the threat of Donald Trump, which is one and the same. But I think that that's what they're responding to. It's not right. It's not a winner for this country. It's not going to help us be more competitive around the world by removing or doing things that hinder talent in this country and the success of individuals.

Why do you think we're seeing such a backlash to DEI, though? People have expressed that they do feel that mandated diversity, equity, and inclusion, they feel that it hasn't been beneficial to relations between races and ethnicities, and that there is a feeling, specifically on the right, that this has become a left-wing orthodoxy.

It's It's interesting at a time when the co-president, Elon Musk, is giving us Hitler salutes and espousing anti-Semitic things. I just find it ironic that we're going to have this debate over DEI and whether it's effective all the while this is going on over here. I mean, seriously? We can talk about DEI and whether there are some approaches or aspects that people want to look at more, maybe need reform, or there should be more flexibility in certain things. But do not tell me that we are going to condone and go down a path in government or in corporate America that says women and people of color are no longer at the table. And not only no longer at the table, but will not be supported anywhere along the way. I think, unfortunately, what's happened in the moment, we've seen a lot of capitulation. We've seen a lot of people trying to hedge their bets. You mean to tell me that's good for America? Come on.

You were, as you mentioned, the country's first openly gay attorney general. Prior to that, you worked in the Civil Rights Division of the AG's office, where you led the first successful challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.

I sued President Obama.

You did. There is some concern among Democrats that after Roe v Wade, we are going to see O'Burger fell, the Supreme Court's decision that made gay marriage legal at the federal level, overturned. Next. Do you worry about that?

I do. I mean, how can you not? The Supreme Court constituted as it is, I mean, how can you not? It seems like anything is possible, is conceivable. Now, it is It's, again, up to everyone to be able to speak out and articulate why it is so important to hold on to precedent. I thought we'd done that with Roe, right? And look what happened there.

There was a huge amount of fury after Roe It fell, but that dissipated. A lot of Democrats thought in this election that Roe was going to be something that was going to galvanize people, and it didn't enough. I guess when you look at marriage equality, does it seem more imminent to you that perhaps people won't stand up for the things that seem to have been settled?

I guess I'd unpack that a little bit. I think if you look at Roe in the aftermath of Roe, what did I do right away as governor? Stockpile Mifepristone. We passed a shield law here to protect patients and providers. Other governors took similar actions. We saw races in states over row, over the abortion issue, where abortion rights won time after time after time. Where it didn't carry the day or carry the entirety of an election, determinative of an election, the only one was the presidential. I just think abortion rights wasn't enough to overcome the perception of weak leadership by the Biden administration on immigration, on the economy, and a poor job communicating what had actually been delivered for American people. Also, it was in the context of increasing inflation and high costs and perception that the Democratic candidate wasn't empathizing enough and feeling the pain and delivering up a solution saying, X, Y, and Z, I'm going to deliver for you. Now, meanwhile, Donald Trump said all these things that he was going to do to lower costs and prices, and, of course, hasn't done a goddamn thing, nor is he going to. But I don't blame...

I don't think there was a dissipation in the after effect of Roe. I think it's there. It's strong. I think it did contribute to more people coming out, even in the presidential. I think the results in other races have shown what's consistent with the polling, which is the vast majority of Americans, Democrat and Republican, support abortion rights. As to marriage equality, we'll see. It's something that I think has been, at least in Massachusetts, we've had marriage equality for 20 years now. Many states have had it for some time as well. The idea that a court overnight would take away that, take away... Remember, these are state marriage licenses these aren't federal marriage licenses, which is why I wanted the case to begin with, the Doma case. It shouldn't happen as a matter of law, but imagine the destruction to families, right? I hope that doesn't happen.

Were you surprised to see the level of importance that trans rights had in this election? Do you think Democrats misread the electorate on the issue, as Seth Moulton, the representative from your own state, said?

To me, it's just so sad that we are talking about such an infinitesimal portion of the population. But Trump and the Republicans intentionally made that into a mountain, right? We're talking about such a small sliver of the population. By the way, on athletics, it's even smaller as a percentage, but they did an incredibly effective job of making that an issue. That and immigration, I think we're two of the issues.

And DEI, what I keep on hearing you say is that they've managed to- Well, I think the other thing was the economy.

At the end of the day, I think it's the economy that ended up doing Biden and Kamala Harris in.

Last question. Barring change to the Constitution, President Trump can't be reelected.

But that's a real thing. Aren't people talking about it? He's got a group talking about a third term. Are you worried about I am worried about that.

You have to think about it.

Yeah. I mean, I have a pretty sober view of the situation. I mean, we live through Trump I. We're on to Trump two. I was talking to a historian the other day who I called on President's Day to ask for some guidance to help me provide a context for this moment that we're in. She said to me, I can't We've never seen anything like this before in American history. You asked me that question, and my genuine answer is, yeah, I'm worried about that. I'm worried about what they're doing in terms of looking to mind future elections. Look at what Trump is proposing with the Postal Service and wanting to take it over, wanting to privatize it. The other day in the governor's meeting, he told us all we should be working by paper ballot. There's a reason they are doing that.

When I speak to Democratic voters, there is an enormous amount of anger towards the Democratic Party that allowed this to happen. They look at this and they say it was the failure of the Democratic Party that opened the door to Donald Trump coming in. I just wonder, as a sitting governor and a Democrat, how you respond to that.

I agree. I empathize with that position. Now, is it all attributable to one president and his team and his administration in the form of Joe Biden? No, I'm not suggesting that. But there are things that happened that could have happened, that should have happened, that didn't happen. Here we are. I do this job. I became governor because I care about people. I want to serve people. I want to see the people in Massachusetts served. My colleagues I work with and have the privilege of working with the Democratic governors, believe in America, believe in the needs, the wants of everyday Americans. It's upsetting to be here, having this conversation with you in this moment. I, too, ask, how the hell did we get here?

Governor Healey, thank you very much.

It's great to be with you.

That It's Governor Mora Healey. This conversation was produced by Seth Kelly. It was edited by Annabelle Bacon, mixing by Sophia Landman, original music by Ron Nemistow, Sophia Landman, and Marion Lozano. Photography by Philip Montgomery. Our senior booker is Priya Matthew, and Wyatt Orm is our producer. Our executive producer is Allison Benedict. Special thanks to Reid Epstein, Rory Walsh, Ronan Borelli, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddie Macielo, Jake Silverstein, Paula Schumann, and Sam Dolnik. If you like what you're hearing, follow or subscribe to The Interview wherever you get your podcasts. To read or listen to any of our conversations, you can always go to nytimes. Com/theinterview, and you can email us anytime at theinterview@nytimes. Com. Next week, David talks to Lady Gaga about her new album, Mayhem, and what she's learned after almost 20 years in the music business.

Some of it is how much you can understand.

It's like how much you are willing to give away of yourself. I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro, and this is the interview from the New York Times.

Your favorite playlist. A long, open road trip. Great on their own, but combined, a perfect complement to one another. Just like Audi hybrid models. One part, epic, efficient electric power, the other, legendary Audi engine performance. This is a pairing that's all in one, twice as good. This is Audi.