BUTTE, Mont. — Pete Buttigieg likes to say how proud he is of the work he did in Joe Biden’s administration, when, as secretary of Transportation, he helped distribute billions of dollars in infrastructure grants.
He’s also open about his deep disappointments with the federal government.
“In some ways, it radicalized me,” Buttigieg told NOTUS in an interview.
“It showed me the need for institutional change,” he said. “I’m an ideological moderate, but when it comes to our institutions, I think that what I saw was just how hard it was to get even common-sense things done. How many layers of bureaucracy delayed the delivery of a new bridge or airport?”
Trending
Buttigieg spoke to NOTUS about how his experience in Biden’s administration has caused him to rethink the structure and scope of the executive branch after Donald Trump’s presidency — one of the most pressing, and politically thorniest, issues facing any potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028.
His bottom line? The next Democratic president must know that things will never go back to the way they were before Trump’s second term in office.
“People don’t want to turn back the clock. Republicans can’t take us back to the 1950s. Democrats can’t take us back to the early 2020s or the 2010s,” Buttigieg said. “We shouldn’t try. I think this is really important substantively, but it’s also fairly obvious politically.
“At least, I find it obvious,” he said.
Buttigieg was in Montana last month to formally endorse a plan that would prohibit corporate money from funding ads in the state’s elections. But the visit was also part of an ongoing and not-so-subtle effort on the part of the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, to engage with Democratic voters in all parts of the country ahead of what almost everyone expects will be another run for the presidency in 2028. An Emerson poll in May had Buttigieg leading a tight field of potential Democratic candidates.
During his speech, multiple members of the audience yelled enthusiastically at Buttigieg, now 44 with a beard and notably graying hair, to run for president.
“No comment,” he said after the second such exhortation.
His conversation with NOTUS has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
President Trump has restructured the executive branch in dramatic ways, and he’s also expanded its scope. Are Democrats going to be able to put it back together, or are they going to have to consider something new and propose something new?
I believe very strongly that there’s no going back. It is not possible, or even desirable, to try to restore previous status quo. Obviously, a lot of the things that are going on right now are terrible, and in my view, some of them are criminal. That doesn’t mean the right answer is to just pick up the pieces and have what we used to have. Because the flaws of our economic and social and financial and political status quo from before, I think, helped to explain what got us into the mess we’re in right now.
I worry that there’s going to be a strong temptation in my party to adopt a kind of return-to-normalcy agenda.
Based on your own conversations with other Democrats, do you think they see it the way you do?
I’m not sure everybody does. It’s part of why I’m preaching this so energetically.
But whenever I say it in a room full of people, people get it, right? I mean, you heard it here where a questioner said, “What can we do to reverse the changes or reverse the damage?” And I explained why I think of it a little differently from reversal. And she and the room, I think, were on board with that.
So I think people get it. I think it’s a little harder for our party institutions to get it. And look, let’s face it, there’s a lot of muscle memory and machinery that was built around the older way of doing things, both in terms of political strategy and in terms of policy. It’s going to be very hard for them to change, too.
Do you think that the Biden administration tried to put it back together and that at some level, that was part of the political problem?
In some ways, yes. I think that if a return to normalcy was possible or workable, then the last administration would have achieved it.
Look, obviously there were a lot of things that I believe were really good outcomes, including the infrastructure work that I was so proud to be part of. But I think it’s also clear that what people really felt and wanted and needed was not just some kind of restoration to normal. That’s not what I campaigned on in 2019, 2020 either.
Is it just a political problem or are there substantive reasons that people are frustrated by the old status quo?
I think it’s both. This is not just a question of messaging. I think that it is substantively the wrong answer, to go back to what we had before. And I think it is substantively the right answer to ask ourselves when something has been wrecked through the current administration or just outlived its usefulness, what can we put back in its place? I shouldn’t even say back. Just what can we put forward in its place?
The Department of Education, I’m sure, could go through some serious overhaul. It was wrong to destroy it. It doesn’t mean you should put it back just the way it was.
International development aid — very important for the U.S., strategically, to be doing that. That doesn’t mean that you put back the old USAID just the way we do it. It could have stood a lot of big changes. Just talk to anybody who was part of it.
Can you give me an example?
You know, some of it’s structural. Does it need to be a standalone agency when you have that? It’s actually more vulnerable politically. It could make more sense to integrate it, including budgetarily, with other diplomatic and national security functions.
I’m not saying I have all the answers cooked out. I’m saying we should be open to very different approaches. You know, housing. The way we do federal support for housing obviously hasn’t worked in terms of heading off a housing affordability crisis. So how could that be structured and set up on different terms?
And look, these are my habits also because this is what we did when I was mayor. We took apart our economic development department and system, and we put it back together on different terms.
You said last year that DOGE gave Democrats an opportunity, potentially. Can you elaborate on that?
Well, there’s a big difference between the DOGE we got and the DOGE we could have had. What wound up happening was that they came in, made a bunch of big promises, destroyed a bunch of things. Repeatedly had to reverse themselves when they fired people from jobs that we really needed, like safeguarding nuclear weapons and tracking the bird flu. And even failed to meet their own stated goal of cutting government spending. In fact, I think we wound up with more government spending.
So they set a very specific goal. They missed it, and they created a lot of wreckage in the process.
But the concept of a drive for a more efficient government is one that we should welcome. Government delivery in America is, in too many ways, a mess. Accessing tax credits, especially for low income people, who might qualify for [the Earned Income Tax Credit], is way too complicated. Accessing food and health benefits can be a nightmare. The closest thing we have to a system for secure identification is a Social Security number printed on a flimsy cardboard slip of paper that you’re not even allowed to laminate. That functions as both your username and your password. There are all kinds of things, from the way we spend money to the way we deliver services, that need to change.
Do you think your time in the White House and the administration made you more aware of some of this?
Yes, in some ways, it radicalized me.
Say more about that.
It showed me the need for institutional change. I’m an ideological moderate, but when it comes to our institutions, I think that what I saw was just how hard it was to get even common-sense things done. How many layers of bureaucracy delayed the delivery of a new bridge or airport?
We completed 20,000 projects, and I’m proud of that. But there were thousands more that I saw take much longer than they should have and cost much more than they should have despite our best efforts within the existing machinery to speed it up. And I saw outside of my own lane a lot of other cases where a wildly popular, good policy couldn’t get through or couldn’t get done. Paid parental leave, just to take one example.
So I think the time that I spent serving in Washington showed me what you can get done. I mean, I’m really proud of bipartisan work on infrastructure and I’m proud of what we did to deliver.
But it also showed me many ways that the system has lined up to stand in the way. And if we’re not willing to change the system from an executive branch too deferential to its own procedural systems, to a legislative branch that has become a mix between a rubber stamp for this administration and a content farm in general, and a court that is wildly out of whack with what the American people expect from our judiciary — if we’re not really willing to undertake that deep reform, then I think we’ll continue to have really frequent frustrations no matter who gets elected.
So an audience member asked this, but I feel like there’s this question facing whoever the next Democratic president is, whether or not they embrace some of the executive power that Trump has created, or do they seek to restrict it?
To take one example: Should the next Democratic president go back and honor the old tradition of not firing the FBI director, who very well could be Kash Patel then?
Well, the reasons Kash Patel needs to be fired are separate and apart from norms about political independence. In my view. I mean, just to take one example — having visited the hallowed ground of the USS Arizona to pay my respects, the idea of snorkeling around a tomb containing hundreds of American war dead, as if it’s Discovery Cove over there, is a firing offense on its face. But never mind that particular appointee.
Yes, I believe that there needs to be a more restrained executive branch, but I think we’re asking the wrong question if we’re just saying, “Should the executive branch do more or do less?”
To me, the executive branch needs to become both more and less powerful. It needs to become more capable when it comes to things like confronting inequality and standing up for the little guy and addressing fraud and misbehavior by powerful organizations and corporations. And it needs to become less powerful when it comes to things like surveillance and intimidation and monitoring and restricting speech.
Let’s take another example: the FCC. Should the next Democratic president consider having an FCC chair who is more willing to wade into what people say or what television networks air on their channels?
The FCC chair has political preferences of people he regulates. The job is to make sure that the law is applied and followed. And he’s taken a wildly expansive view of that, which in my view is unconstitutional.
But one of the problems we have right now, I mean, obviously, I think a better president could appoint more responsible people. But one weakness in our system that we discovered is you can do a lot of damage. And if you’re doing something that you know will be overturned in the courts, you can still get a lot of damage done before the courts get around to overturning you. We’ve seen a lot of that.
Our system, even if we try to make it bulletproof, it still on some level depends on decent people or law-abiding people being elected.
How important do you think that this mindset is for the next Democratic nominee, if they become president, everything we’ve just been talking about — how central do you see this to the whole job?
I think it’s huge. I think we need to reform each of the branches of government in different ways. I think we need to reform the tax code. And many of these things will be forced on us if we don’t get them done anyway. Somebody, I think it was actually the father of Ben Stein, is known for saying, if something can’t go on forever, then it won’t.
And there are all these things where we keep saying to ourselves, “It can’t go on like this.” If you actually believe it can’t go on like this, then it necessarily won’t. And the question is, will that change happen through a catastrophe or will it happen before a catastrophe?
I think we’ve already had a political catastrophe in the U.S. But there’s certain things like a currency catastrophe or a fiscal catastrophe around the tax code that have yet to strike. If responsible people come into power before it does, that’s got to be very high on the agenda to deal with.
Can you tell me more about that?
Well, we really are at a level where even the left can’t ignore the debt and the deficits that we’ve got as a country. We’ve got a tax code — in both the loopholes and exceptions and in just the kind of ticket price, so to speak, and in the collection of it and the evasion that goes on, the technology behind that — that is just hopelessly inadequate to fund the American federal enterprise.
This is not glamorous stuff, but I think we need to be working that at the same time as we’re working things that we probably talk about a little more in campaigns, like “Medicare for All Who Want It,” and a higher minimum wage and getting you paid parental leave. And a whole other set of things that people want and we should have, and we can have, if we’re willing.
The president has even made physical changes to Washington or he’s in the process of making physical changes. The White House Ballroom is the most prominent example. Do you think that that’s something that a Democratic president should get rid of?
Part of what I’m asking is, ‘How much do you try to look back and redress wrongs, perceived wrongs from the Democratic Party, and how much do you try to move forward in the future?’
Let’s take the East Wing as a metaphor. I think it was wrong to tear it down. I also don’t think it would make any sense to try to put it back in every particular the way it used to look. And in fact, there were a bunch of problems with the old structure, too. Doesn’t mean you should have torn it down.
But it means that what should happen next is to say, ‘Wait a minute, is this really supposed to be a gilded ballroom? Or is there a more responsible approach?’ And maybe there is some event space in there. I don’t know, but a more responsible approach to how to use some of the most important real estate in the whole capital.
In a way, it’s a metaphor for the bigger picture. I mean, part of how I think about it is, it’s like you have a building that needed new wiring and plumbing and HVAC. And instead, somebody came in and just bulldozed the front half of the building off. That was wrong. But you still have to deal with the fact that the plumbing, the wiring, and the HVAC were shot. And so you got to really be creative and start over.
What I’m getting from this is you think there is a political necessity for the next Democratic presidential nominee, if they want to win the presidency, they can’t go to people and say, “We’re going to go back to the way things were.”
People don’t want to turn back the clock. Republicans can’t take us back to the 1950s. Democrats can’t take us back to the early 2020s or the 2010s. We shouldn’t try.
I think this is really important substantively, but it’s also fairly obvious politically. At least, I find it obvious.
Are you worried that, again, talking about the need for change and the Democratic Party’s approach, if Democrats had a good midterm election people will just say, “Oh, I guess we’re fine”? Does that concern you?
Yes. First of all, I think it would be a mistake to believe that a midterm election, fueled by people’s disappointment and disgust with this administration, is the same thing as a validation for a governing division, for Democrats.
Or to put it another way, it is maybe possible to get through one midterm cycle without the strongest or clearest governing vision, but it’s not possible to do that repeatedly. More importantly, it’s not possible to do a good job if you win unless you have a governing vision.
Our vision has to be deeply rooted in how your everyday life gets better if we win. And we have to be ready to defend things that we’re used to not even having to defend. Like some of the other stuff away from the kitchen table, democracy.
We don’t just defend democracy by just saying democracy is good. We defend democracy by reminding people why it means a better kitchen table. Connecting the lack of accountability in this administration with why you’ve got everything from a Health and Human Services Department that’s letting measles spread to a Transportation Department that’s letting airline lobbyists get their way, to an Education Department that’s being dismantled, to all the other kinds of abuses that we’ve seen. If there’s more accountability, you’re not in a situation where you’re paying through the nose for diesel and gas because the president started a war nobody likes.
The last Democratic presidential primary in 2020, a lot of people would say there was a real race to the left in ways that came back to haunt Kamala Harris, for instance, in the 2024 election. And I’m curious, just as a Democratic Party leader, do you think that the situation could be different next time?
I think the outcomes since then have reminded us that a cohesive political message, like a cohesive governing vision, has to reach different people where they are through the same themes, which is different from having a unique theme for every group.
And I think there was a pull, a temptation, a pressure that was very real for all of us who were running in 2019 to kind of splinter our message and our approach and our focus into one group at a time, mainly organized around identity. Obviously, I think a blunt reality in our society and people’s everyday lives is that identity is real and it matters. But I think we need to be ready to express and explain our values in ways that knit together or cut across those different silos in those different groups.
And I think watching, among other things, this president make big gains among young men and voters of color should teach us a thing or two about how to campaign differently in the future than we did in the past.
You think your campaign, that lesson having been learned, you think you might campaign differently?
Well, I think Democrats are campaigning differently now. And I think it’ll be important, again, in the event of a successful November to take that as a reason to push forward and not to roll back.
What about Zohran Mamdani’s success? How do you square what he was able to do with the success you think Democrats are having more broadly right now?
Well, I think that that only needs to be squared if you think of it all in terms of the ideological left, right, center thing. I actually think that those campaigns have a lot in common. Maybe not on the ideological spectrum, but in a focus on affordability, tactics that included reaching everybody where they are. And in a willingness to really engage folks everywhere.
So some is tactical, some is substantive. Obviously, the substance of a campaign for mayoral election in New York is going to look different than one for a House election in rural North Carolina. But there are certain things that all good candidates really do have in common. And I think it’s a focus on the things people actually care about, a willingness to engage with anyone who will listen. A level of fairness, fearlessness about doing that.
Because risk aversion has been a big problem in our party, too. And just being deeply, deeply rooted in the sense of place, which will, of course, lead to a different feel for a place-based candidate here in Montana than it will for someone in Brooklyn.
Anything else you’d like to add?
I mean, hopefully I’ve given you a sense of it. Again, to me, I would like to transcend this strange in-house debate between bread-and-butter issues and reform issues. Because I think we should campaign very vigorously around bread-and-butter issues. And also face the reality that reform issues stand in the way of good economic outcomes.
Which is why, should we win in November, I think it’s important to immediately go to bat for a series of clean bills that will deliver things like, again, paid leave, fair tax code, more health care support for Americans and so on. Things that are good, that are needed, that are democratic with a capital D and that are popular. And we will either force a sufficient number of Republicans to come along with us, or we will have them on the record for having stood against what the American people wanted. I’d prefer the former, but if the result is the latter, we can work with that, too.
Did the book “Abundance” affect your thinking at all? Were you already there?
It certainly captured a lot of things that I experienced trying to get infrastructure built in this country. But I also think it would be a mistake to assume that that’s all there is to the changes that we need. I think that represents a set of procedural things that are ripe for change. But we’ve got to look much bigger and much deeper in our economy, in our political architecture, if we really want to get better results.
Don’t miss the stories shaping Washington.
Sign in
Log into your free account with your email. Don’t have one?
Check your email for a one-time code.
We sent a 4-digit code to . Enter the pin to confirm your account.
New code will be available in 1:00
Let’s try this again.
We encountered an error with the passcode sent to . Please reenter your email.
You’re on the list! Thank you for reading NOTUS.
Author
