Name: Sanjyot Dunung

What office are you seeking: House of Representatives, Illinois 8th

What is your political party?

What is your current age? 60

Occupation and employer: Entrepreneur, Atma Global

What offices, if any, have you previously held? While I have been supporting races up and down the ballot for more than 7 years and have served on Biden’s Foreign Policy Working Group focused on International Trade, this is my first time as a candidate.

City: Des Plaines, IL

Campaign website: www.SanjyotForCongress.com

Education: Attended Maine Township schools, ultimately graduating from Maine West; Earned a Bachelor’s at Northwestern University, IL and an MBA from Thunderbird School of Global Management, AZ.

Community involvement: I was raised by parents who embodied the values of hard work, service, and responsibility to others. That foundation shaped my lifelong commitment to public service, centered on four core pillars: education, rights of children and women, entrepreneurship, and disability advocacy.

Education: I have long advocated for education reform that strengthens curricula to be globally competitive and ensures every child has access to a world-class education and a future with good-paying jobs. I founded a small business focused on innovative digital solutions for higher education and lifelong learning, helping expand access to education at every stage of life. My firm was recognized by Fast Company as one of the Most Innovative Companies, reflecting my belief that education, technology, and opportunity must work together to prepare students and workers for a rapidly changing global economy.

Women & Children’s Rights: I have been a strong advocate for the rights and opportunities of women and children in the United States and globally, including women’s healthcare freedom and privacy. I currently serve on the Board of the American Leadership Project, dedicated to advancing women leaders. For more than twenty years, I served in multiple roles with UNICEF USA, including as a Board member, and I have mentored Afghan women entrepreneurs through Project Artemis.

Entrepreneurship & Small Business: I am deeply committed to empowering entrepreneurs and small businesses through education, advocacy, and mentorship. I served on President Biden’s Foreign Policy Working Group, helping shape policies to boost small business exports and job creation. I currently serve on the boards of the National Small Business Association and the Truman Center for National Policy, advancing pragmatic economic and global leadership.

Disability Advocacy: Inspired by my mother’s struggle with a rare form of muscular dystrophy, I work with Illinois-based organizations such as AgeOptions and the Frisbie Center to advocate for access to the resources people need to live and age with dignity.

Marital status/Immediate family: Divorced, three adult sons.

What are your top three legislative priorities for your first year in the U.S. House?

If elected, my top three legislative priorities in my first year in the U.S. House will focus on restoring affordability, strengthening economic security, and defending our democracy through competent, responsible governance. These priorities reflect what I hear every day from families, seniors, workers, and small business owners across Illinois’ 8th District.

First, I will work to lower healthcare costs and strengthen economic security. Healthcare sits at the center of the affordability crisis. Too many of our families are forced to choose between prescriptions, rent, and groceries. I will fight to protect and strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act, expand subsidies, and continue efforts to lower prescription drug prices. As someone who took care of disabled and aging parents, I understand the challenges our families are going through. I will prioritize expanding home- and community-based care so seniors and people with disabilities can live independently with dignity. Preventive care and mental health access must be strengthened to improve outcomes and reduce long-term costs. Healthcare should never be a source of financial ruin.

Second, I will focus on building a stronger economy for working families and small businesses—through workforce development, fair trade, and pro-legal immigration reform. A strong economy starts locally. I will support policies that raise wages, protect overtime, and expand workforce training, vocational education, and apprenticeships tied directly to regional employers. As a small business owner, I understand how access to capital, reliable infrastructure, and fair regulations determine whether businesses can grow and hire.

We also cannot address labor shortages, supply chains, and competitiveness without fixing our broken immigration system. I will prioritize fast, fair, and lawful immigration reform that modernizes visa processing, expands work-based pathways, and clears backlogs so employers can hire legally, and workers are not forced into the shadows. Pro-legal immigration reform strengthens our economy, supports small businesses, and restores public trust.

Third, I will defend democratic guardrails and make government work for the people again. Our democracy depends on fair elections, independent institutions, and a Congress that governs responsibly. I will support legislation to protect voting rights, end partisan gerrymandering, and restore transparency and accountability. That includes strengthening congressional oversight, defending the rule of law, and resisting efforts to politicize public institutions. I am committed to working across the aisle to deliver results, not gridlock.

As the only candidate in this race with deep private-sector experience and national policy expertise, I am prepared to lead from day one. My priorities are grounded in real-world experience and guided by common sense: make life more affordable, strengthen opportunity, fix what is broken, and restore trust in government.

What specific local issues in this district will guide your work in Congress?

The most pressing local issue in Illinois’ 8th District is affordability—and at the center of it is healthcare, housing, and access to good-paying jobs. Families are being squeezed from every direction. Grocery bills are higher, rents and mortgages keep rising, and medical expenses are stretching household budgets to the breaking point—even for people who are working full-time and doing everything right.

I understand what our families are going through. While raising three boys, running a small business, and caring for aging and disabled parents, I saw how quickly a medical issue or caregiving responsibility can turn into a financial crisis. When premiums, prescription drugs, or long-term care costs rise, families are forced into impossible choices between health, housing, and basic necessities. No one should have to live that way.

That’s why lowering healthcare costs and strengthening economic security will guide my work in Congress. I will fight to protect and strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act, lower prescription drug prices, and make sure that seniors and people with disabilities have the resources to live at home and age with dignity.

But affordability is also about opportunity. Families can’t get ahead unless wages rise and good jobs are available close to home. I will work to expand workforce training, apprenticeships, and lifelong learning programs that connect people to high-paying jobs in manufacturing, healthcare, clean energy, technology, and advanced logistics. As a small business owner, I understand how access to capital, fair regulations, and skilled workers help local employers grow and raise wages.

Housing is another major pressure point. I will support policies that increase housing supply, speed up responsible development, and invest in infrastructure and transit so working families can live near their jobs and communities.

Affordability isn’t an abstract policy debate—it determines whether families in our district can build stable, secure lives. Every decision I make in Congress will be guided by one simple question: does this make life more affordable, create opportunity, and strengthen our community?

What federal funding priorities would you advocate for this district, including infrastructure needs like roads, bridges, broadband, and transit?

In Illinois’ 8th District, federal infrastructure funding should focus on investments that directly lower costs, improve quality of life, and strengthen our local economy.

First, I will advocate for sustained federal investment in repairing and modernizing roads, bridges, and transit systems across our suburbs and cities. Reliable transportation reduces commute times, lowers vehicle maintenance and fuel costs, and helps families and businesses move efficiently. I also support investments in freight and rail infrastructure that strengthen regional supply chains, reduce congestion, and support local manufacturing and distribution jobs.

Second, we must expand affordable, clean energy and modern power infrastructure to bring down utility costs and strengthen energy security. I support federal investments in renewable energy, grid modernization, energy storage, and energy efficiency programs that help families and small businesses lower monthly bills. Strategic support for responsibly developed data centers, clean manufacturing hubs, and advanced energy systems can also attract high-paying jobs while strengthening grid reliability—so growth lowers costs instead of raising them.

Third, I support strong federal investments in water systems, stormwater management, and climate resilience. Upgrading aging pipes, improving drainage systems, and protecting natural waterways reduces flooding, protects homes and businesses, and safeguards public health. Preventive infrastructure saves taxpayer dollars over time by avoiding costly emergency repairs and disaster recovery.

Across all of these areas, I will prioritize Buy America policies, strong workforce standards, and rigorous oversight so federal dollars create good-paying jobs locally and deliver real value to taxpayers. Infrastructure funding should be predictable, accountable, and focused on outcomes that people can see and feel in their daily lives—lower bills, safer communities, better jobs, and stronger local economies.

That is how we use federal investment to make everyday life more affordable and ensure Illinois’ 8th District remains a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

How will you prioritize the concerns of your district versus the priorities of your party?

My responsibility as a member of Congress will always be to the people of Illinois’ 8th District first—not to party leadership, political donors, or ideological factions.

My priorities come directly from listening to voters: making daily life more affordable, lowering everyday costs, protecting seniors and caregivers, strengthening local jobs, helping small businesses grow, and making smart investments that will benefit our communities and our country. Those are not partisan goals. They are practical needs, and they should guide every serious policymaker.

That means there will be times when I work closely with other Democrats because we share common objectives. And there will be times when I work across the aisle to get results for the district. I don’t believe governing is about ideological purity or scoring points on social media. It’s about solving problems. Sometimes that means improving language in a bill, protecting a local program, or securing funding that makes a real difference—even if it doesn’t make headlines.

I am also comfortable saying no when a proposal doesn’t serve our community, even if it is politically popular. Being independent-minded and thoughtful is part of putting people over politics.

As a small business owner, caregiver, and mom, I know what families are dealing with every day. They don’t want more chaos. They want competence, stability, and leaders who focus on results.

If elected, I will represent IL-08 with independence, integrity, and common sense—and with a clear commitment to working with anyone, in any party, who is serious about improving people’s lives.

Has Congress given up its Article I powers during the Trump administration? How would you restore congressional authority?

Over time, and especially during the Trump administration, Congress has allowed too much of its Article I authority to erode. That didn’t happen overnight, and it isn’t the responsibility of any one party. It happened because Congress too often chose convenience, partisanship, or avoidance over doing the hard work of governing.

The Constitution is clear: Congress controls the power of the purse, regulates trade, and plays a central role in decisions of war and peace. When presidents of either party impose tariffs unilaterally, withhold congressionally appropriated funds, or take military action without authorization, and Congress fails to respond, it weakens democratic accountability. It shifts power permanently toward the executive branch.

Restoring congressional authority starts with Congress acting like a coequal branch again.

First, Congress must reassert its power over the purse. Funds appropriated by Congress must be released as directed, without political interference. That requires stronger enforcement mechanisms, real oversight, and consequences for ignoring the law.

Second, Congress must reclaim its role in foreign policy and trade. Decisions involving military force and broad tariffs should not be made unilaterally. Congress must debate, vote, and take responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.

Third, Congress must use its oversight tools consistently, not selectively. Subpoenas, hearings, and reporting requirements exist to prevent abuse of power, regardless of which party controls the White House.

Finally, restoring authority requires a cultural shift away from performative politics and toward responsibility. Governing isn’t about ceding power when it’s inconvenient and reclaiming it only when it’s politically advantageous. It’s always about defending institutions and constitutional roles.

Restoring congressional authority is essential to rebuilding trust in government. Democracy works only when each branch does its job, and I am committed to doing mine.

The United States should approach foreign policy and intervention with discipline, clarity, and respect for the rule of law. Our engagement abroad must be grounded in our values, our alliances, and our long-term national interests—not in unilateral action, improvisation, or political theatrics. A strong foreign policy is not about reacting to crises. It is about preventing them through strategy, credibility, and consistent leadership.

America’s global role depends on being seen as a reliable partner and a serious actor. When we act without coordination, clear objectives, or congressional oversight, we weaken our influence, undermine our alliances, and make conflict more likely. A principled foreign policy protects both our security and our economic strength.

What is your position on U.S. intervention, specifically Ukraine, Israel and Venezuela?

Ukraine I strongly support continued U.S. assistance to Ukraine. Russia’s invasion is a clear violation of international law and a direct threat to democratic sovereignty and European stability. Supporting Ukraine is about defending the principle that borders cannot be changed by force and that democracies will not be abandoned when authoritarian regimes seek to dominate their neighbors. U.S. support should remain closely coordinated with allies and NATO, paired with strong oversight and accountability, and focused on helping Ukraine defend itself while working toward a durable, negotiated end to the conflict.

Israel and Palestine I support the Gaza Peace plan which is endorsed by the Arab states, the majority of the UN countries, and the US. I support Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself, and I believe the U.S.–Israel relationship is a vital strategic partnership. At the same time, lasting security requires diplomacy and a political horizon. I support a diplomacy-first approach that prioritizes de-escalation and advances a negotiated two-state solution that ensures Israel’s long-term security and gives Palestinians a viable path to dignity and self-determination. I have long supported peace through trade and would welcome the implementation of the IMEC trade corridor. The United States should oppose terrorism, reject unilateral actions that undermine peace, uphold international law, and support humanitarian assistance that reduces suffering and instability.

Venezuela The Maduro regime has caused immense suffering through corruption, repression, and economic collapse. The United States has a legitimate interest in supporting democratic outcomes and regional stability. However, I do not support unilateral military action or efforts to remove foreign leaders by force without congressional authorization and a clear strategic plan. The U.S. should pursue diplomacy, multilateral pressure, targeted sanctions, and humanitarian engagement in close coordination with regional partners to promote peaceful, democratic change.

Across all cases, U.S. leadership must be anchored in alliances, diplomacy, and constitutional accountability. Military force should always be a last resort—clearly justified, narrowly defined, and authorized by Congress. Strong civilian oversight and clear objectives are essential to protecting American service members and taxpayers.

As a military mom and someone who has worked on national security and economic policy, I take these responsibilities seriously. Our decisions affect real lives, real families, and America’s standing in the world.

America is strongest when it leads with confidence, competence, and principle—defending democracy abroad while upholding democratic norms at home. That is the foreign policy standard I will bring to Congress.

Do you believe the President should have the constitutional authority to order military strikes and detain a foreign head of state without prior Congressional authorization? Why or why not, and where should Congress draw the line between executive action and its own constitutional war powers?

The President should not have the authority to order military strikes or detain a foreign head of state without prior congressional authorization, except in the most limited circumstances where there is a clear, imminent threat to American lives.

The Constitution is very clear on this for a reason. The founders intentionally divided war powers to prevent anyone from making decisions that could drag our country into conflict without public accountability. Congress has the responsibility to declare war, authorize the use of force, regulate detention, and conduct oversight. The President serves as Commander in Chief once that authority is granted. When presidents bypass Congress, they weaken democratic checks and concentrate power in ways that were never intended.

As a military mom and someone who has worked on national security policy, I take this seriously. These decisions aren’t abstract. They affect real service members, real families, and America’s standing in the world. Acting without a clear strategy, legal authority, or congressional backing puts lives at risk and damages our credibility.

That doesn’t mean the President can’t act quickly in emergencies. If U.S. forces are under imminent threat, defensive action may be necessary. But those actions must be narrowly defined, limited in scope and time, and followed immediately by consultation with Congress and, when appropriate, formal authorization. Emergency authority should never become a blank check for prolonged military campaigns, regime change, or detention decisions with far-reaching consequences.

Congress must also do its job. It needs to reclaim its constitutional role by requiring approval for sustained military operations, enforcing reporting requirements, setting firm time limits on unauthorized actions, and using its oversight and budget powers to ensure compliance.

This isn’t about weakening any president, regardless of party. It’s about strengthening our democracy. Decisions of war and peace are among the most serious a nation can make. They should never rest in the hands of one person alone.

We protect America best when we lead with discipline, transparency, and constitutional accountability. That is the standard I will bring to Congress.

Do you believe any conduct of the current administration needs to be investigated?

Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight, no matter who is in the White House. That duty doesn’t disappear when it becomes politically uncomfortable. In a healthy democracy, accountability is not optional — it is essential.

If there are credible indications that the current administration has exceeded its legal authority, violated congressional spending laws, interfered with independent agencies, or ignored statutory limits, then Congress has an obligation to investigate through proper, lawful channels. No president and no administration is above the law. That standard must apply consistently, regardless of party.

As someone who believes deeply in strong institutions and constitutional accountability, I also believe oversight must be serious and disciplined — not performative. Investigations should be grounded in evidence, conducted through established procedures, and focused on protecting democratic norms and the public interest, not scoring political points or fueling outrage cycles.

I have seen how destructive “gotcha politics” can be. It weakens trust in government, distracts from real problem-solving, and leaves working families paying the price for dysfunction in Washington. Oversight should strengthen democracy, not turn it into a reality show.

Congress should draw a clear line: when laws are broken or authority is abused, it must act decisively; when there is no evidence, it should not manufacture controversy. Responsible oversight means knowing the difference and having the courage to follow the facts wherever they lead.

I strongly support protecting the independence of inspectors general, ethics and law enforcement, and the courts. These institutions exist to serve the public, not political interests. Undermining them for short-term advantage damages the long-term health of our democracy.

Restoring faith in government requires leaders who apply the rule of law evenly, protect institutional integrity, and put country over politics. That is the standard I will uphold — with seriousness, fairness, and respect for the Constitution.

Has the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) gone too far in its recommendations?

Improving government efficiency is a worthy and necessary goal. As a small business owner, I believe deeply in regularly reviewing operations, eliminating waste, and making sure resources are used wisely. Every successful organization does this. Our government should too.

But the Department of Government Efficiency went too far by confusing disruption with reform. Instead of focusing on careful analysis and measurable improvements, it often overstepped legal boundaries, undermined agency missions, and created instability without delivering lasting results. Efficiency cannot mean bypassing the law, weakening essential programs, or ignoring the real-world consequences for families, small businesses, and communities.

True reform requires discipline, data, and respect for constitutional roles. DOGE assumed authority it did not have, including restructuring agencies and cutting programs without clear authorization from Congress. In some cases, its actions disrupted critical federal operations, weakened service delivery, and raised serious concerns about data security and privacy. That kind of approach damages public trust and weakens the very institutions Americans rely on.

As someone who has built and managed organizations, I know that real efficiency comes from smart planning, modern systems, and continuous improvement — not from shock tactics. Sustainable reform means investing in updated technology, training public servants, simplifying outdated rules, and using evidence to guide decisions. It means improving performance while protecting the core mission of government.

If elected, I will push for regular, independent performance audits every five and ten years to identify inefficiencies, outdated systems, and opportunities to modernize. These reviews should focus on integrating new technology, improving constituency service, and ensuring programs are delivering real value. Accountability should be ongoing, not reactive.

Efficiency must also protect America’s economic and national security. Weakening diplomatic, scientific, regulatory, or public health capacity in the name of “cutting costs” is short-sighted and dangerous. Smart governance strengthens our ability to compete globally, respond to crises, and support families at home.

Ultimately, efficiency should serve people — not politics. It should make government more responsive, transparent, and reliable. Real reform strengthens institutions, respects the law, and earns public trust.

I support making government more innovative and effective. But I will always insist that reform be lawful, data-driven, and focused on delivering results — not creating chaos. That is the standard of leadership I will bring to Congress.

How will you work across the aisle to pass legislation?

Working across the aisle is not something I would learn on the job — it is how I have spent my entire professional career. As a small business owner, educator, social scientist, and policy leader, I have always had to bring together people with different priorities, perspectives, and interests to solve real problems. You don’t succeed by demanding ideological purity. You succeed by finding shared goals and building workable solutions.

In business, education, and public service, I’ve worked with industry leaders, labor groups, policymakers, and international partners to move projects forward. I’ve seen firsthand that lasting progress comes from listening, understanding incentives, and negotiating in good faith. That approach carried into my work on trade, workforce, and economic policy, including serving on President Biden’s Foreign Policy Working Groups and the National Small Business Association, where collaboration mattered far more than party labels.

I also understand that governing is often about steady, incremental progress. Sometimes success means improving language in a bill, protecting a vital program, securing funding for a local priority, or getting an important provision included in a larger package. Those wins may not always make headlines, but they make a real difference in people’s lives.

Too often, Washington treats compromise as weakness. I see it as responsibility. When Congress refuses to work across the aisle, families pay the price through higher costs, delayed projects, and broken systems. Gridlock is not principled — it is harmful.

If elected, I will be direct, prepared, and respectful in working with colleagues from both parties. I will come to the table with data, clear priorities, and a focus on outcomes, not talking points. I will work with any Democrat, Republican, or Independent who is serious about strengthening our economy, protecting democracy, and improving everyday life for working families.

Partisanship may win attention in the short term. Collaboration is how you deliver results. That is the leadership style I will bring to Congress.

Do you support term limits for House members, and if so, what limits?

Yes, I support reasonable term limits for members of Congress, and I believe they should be part of a broader effort to strengthen accountability, renew leadership, and restore public trust in our institutions.

We already recognize the value of term limits at the highest level of government. Presidents are limited to two terms, and vice presidents are effectively limited as well, because we understand that no one should hold power indefinitely. That same principle should apply to Congress and, in my view, to the Supreme Court through structured term limits.

I support limits in the range of 12 to 18 years for members of the House and Senate. That is enough time for lawmakers to develop expertise, build relationships, and deliver results — without allowing public service to become a permanent career disconnected from everyday life. Public office should be a period of service, not a lifetime entitlement.

Term limits would help bring in new leaders, fresh ideas, and diverse experiences. They would make Congress more reflective of the country it represents and reduce the sense.

What is your stance on border security and immigration reform?

America is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Unless you are Native American, we are all immigrants—whether you arrived four years ago or your ancestors came 400 years ago. Immigration has always been one of America’s greatest strengths, fueling our economy, innovation, and communities. We can honor that legacy while maintaining secure borders and the rule of law—if we govern with competence, dignity, and common sense. That is the approach I will bring to Congress.

First, fear-driven enforcement is the wrong approach. Operation Midway Blitz and similar actions have raised serious concerns across Chicago and our surrounding suburbs. What we are seeing is not focused enforcement aimed at real public safety threats. Instead, ICE overreach is creating fear, confusion, and instability for entire communities.

I came to this country as a child and grew up in Des Plaines. My family followed legal pathways, and I believe deeply in the rule of law. But I also believe the government must follow the law. Raids that separate families, disrupt workplaces, and target people with long-standing community ties do not make us safer. They weaken trust, discourage crime reporting, and hurt local economies.

We need strong borders and safe communities, but enforcement must prioritize violent offenders, trafficking networks, and fentanyl—not law-abiding neighbors. Public safety improves when communities trust law enforcement, not fear it.

Second, Congress must rein in ICE and restore accountability. ICE should never operate as a masked, militarized force without transparency. I support requiring judicial warrants for arrests and home entries, limiting face coverings except for verified safety needs, mandating body cameras, and ensuring clear identification on uniforms.

Congress must strengthen independent oversight, create a fast complaint and investigation process, and prohibit enforcement actions at schools, hospitals, courthouses, and houses of worship. No one should fear going to work, seeking medical care, or taking their children to school.

Third, we must fix what is broken with pro-legal immigration reform. Lasting solutions require a system that is fast, fair, and predictable. Congress should have passed immigration reform twenty years ago. Instead, we have the chaos today. From day one, I have prioritized pro-legal immigration reform focused on speed, transparency, and the rule of law. That means hiring more immigration judges, asylum officers, and caseworkers, and modernizing systems so cases are resolved in months—not years.

We must rebuild State Department visa processing abroad, update outdated country quotas, and reform asylum to prioritize those truly fleeing persecution while treating long-time, taxpaying residents with fairness and due process.

Finally, I support bipartisan solutions that restore order and dignity. I support legislation such as the Dignity Act and the DREAM Act, stronger access to legal counsel, and clear protections so enforcement targets genuine threats—not families, students, and workers contributing to our economy.

America can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants—but only if we replace chaos with competence. That is the leadership I will bring to Congress.

Do you support changes to Social Security or Medicare to ensure long-term solvency?

Social Security and Medicare are promises Americans earn over a lifetime of work. I support responsible reforms to strengthen both programs for the long term—but I do not support cutting benefits or shifting the burden onto seniors, working families, or students.

People pay into these programs with every paycheck. They plan their futures around them. Proposals that raise the retirement age or reduce benefits are simply benefit cuts, and I do not believe solvency should be achieved by asking people to work longer or receive less after doing everything right.

At the same time, doing nothing is not an option. If we fail to act, automatic cuts will hurt the very people these programs were created to protect. Strengthening Social Security and Medicare requires practical, fair, and forward-looking solutions.

For Social Security, that means modernizing long-term financing in a way that reflects today’s economy. We should ask those at the very top to contribute more so the system remains strong for future generations. Any reforms must protect middle-class retirees, avoid creating new “benefit cliffs,” and preserve broad public confidence in the program.

We also need to recognize that growing the workforce strengthens Social Security. Pro-legal immigration reform that brings more workers into the system helps stabilize the trust fund while strengthening our economy.

For Medicare, the greatest opportunity is controlling healthcare costs—not cutting care. I support lowering prescription drug prices, cracking down on waste and fraud, improving care coordination, and investing in preventive care so we spend less on expensive crisis treatment later.

As someone who cared for aging and disabled parents, I know how important it is for people to receive care in their homes whenever possible. Expanding home- and community-based services improves quality of life and often reduces long-term costs. With smarter priorities and better coordination, we can help people age with dignity without exploding the budget.

Fiscal responsibility matters. But it should never come at the expense of basic security. These programs are not handouts—they are earned benefits that reflect decades of work and contribution.

My approach is simple: protect benefits, strengthen finances, lower healthcare costs, and plan for the future instead of lurching from crisis to crisis. That is how we honor our commitment to today’s seniors and tomorrow’s retirees.

What should Congress do to address healthcare affordability?

Congress must start treating healthcare affordability as an economic issue, not just a healthcare issue. When families can’t afford premiums, prescriptions, or long-term care, it affects financial security, workforce participation, and long-term economic growth. Healthcare costs are now one of the biggest reasons families fall behind—even when they are working hard and doing everything right.

First, Congress must lower out-of-pocket costs. That means expanding Affordable Care Act subsidies, so premiums and deductibles are truly affordable, capping prescription drug costs, and fully empowering Medicare to negotiate drug prices. No one in America should pay more for lifesaving medication than people in other developed countries.

Second, we need to strengthen coverage and access. Congress should protect and improve the ACA, support Medicaid expansion, and invest in primary, mental health, and preventive care so people can get help early instead of relying on costly emergency treatment. We must also expand home- and community-based services so seniors and people with disabilities can receive care with dignity and independence.

As someone who cared for aging and disabled parents, I know how essential this support is for families—and how quickly the lack of it becomes a crisis.

Third, Congress must tackle the cost drivers inside the system. That includes reducing administrative waste, improving care coordination, cracking down on fraud and abuse, and increasing transparency around hospital and insurance pricing so patients know what they are paying for before they get a bill. A system that hides prices invites inefficiency and unfairness.

Fourth, healthcare policy must reflect real life. Families should not lose coverage because of a small raise. Caregivers should not be forced out of the workforce because care is unaffordable. And people should not have to navigate confusing paperwork just to get the care they’ve earned.

Finally, we must connect healthcare reform to broader economic policy. Lower healthcare costs mean stronger small businesses, higher wages, and a more resilient workforce. When healthcare is predictable and affordable, families can plan, save, and invest in their futures.

I’ve seen firsthand how medical costs can destabilize families. Congress has both the responsibility and the tools to fix this. My approach is practical, data-driven, and focused on results: lower costs, better access, stronger oversight, and care that works in real life—not just on paper.

That is the standard I will bring to every healthcare vote.

Is the CDC a trustworthy, qualified source of information under RFK Jr.? How should public health policy be managed?

Science and public health policy must be grounded in evidence, transparency, and professional independence—not ideology, personal opinion, or political agendas. Institutions like the CDC play a critical role in protecting Americans’ health, but their credibility depends on whether they are allowed to operate based on rigorous science and expert judgment.

Under any leadership, including RFK Jr., the CDC must meet a basic standard: decisions should be guided by peer-reviewed research, qualified public health professionals, and transparent data. When leadership promotes misinformation, undermines vaccine confidence, interferes with research, or substitutes personal beliefs for evidence, it weakens the agency’s effectiveness and puts lives at risk.

Public health is not a partisan issue. It is about keeping families safe, hospitals functioning, and communities resilient. When trust in science is eroded, fewer people follow guidance, outbreaks spread faster, and preventable illnesses become deadly. We saw the consequences of that during COVID, and we cannot afford to repeat those mistakes.

Public trust must be earned and protected. People do not need to agree with every recommendation, but they deserve confidence that guidance is honest, independent, and rooted in facts. That means safeguarding career scientists from political pressure, maintaining strong firewalls between research and politics, and ensuring agency leaders are qualified, experienced, and committed to scientific integrity.

Public health policy should also be managed with accountability and humility. Science evolves, and guidance should evolve with it. Leaders must be willing to update recommendations as new evidence emerges, communicate clearly and consistently, and admit uncertainty when it exists. Confusing or politicized messaging undermines confidence and compliance.

Effective public health also requires partnership. Congress and federal agencies must work closely with state and local health departments, healthcare providers, universities, and community leaders. Policy should reflect real-world conditions, not top-down mandates disconnected from people’s lives.

No one is asking for blind trust. The goal is earned trust. Public health works best when science leads, politics stays in its lane, and Americans know decisions are being made to protect their health—not to advance a political agenda.

That is the standard I will defend in Congress: evidence over ideology, transparency over spin, and public safety over politics.

How should Congress regulate artificial intelligence, if at all?

Artificial intelligence has enormous potential to drive innovation, productivity, and economic growth. Used responsibly, it can strengthen healthcare, education, manufacturing, and national security. But left completely unregulated, it also carries serious risks to privacy, jobs, public safety, and our democracy. Congress must set smart boundaries—carefully and deliberately—so America leads in AI without losing control of it.

As a lifelong innovator and EdTech business founder, I believe strongly in encouraging innovation, not stifling it. But leadership also means setting clear guardrails. We can do that in four practical steps.

First, Congress must prioritize oversight of high-risk uses of AI, especially in national security, healthcare, finance, elections, and law enforcement. We are already seeing deepfakes of public officials, sophisticated scams, and AI-driven misinformation spreading online. These tools are dividing families and exploiting vulnerable people. No automated system should be allowed to make unchecked decisions that affect people’s rights, safety, or freedom. Human oversight must remain central.

Second, we need clear national standards for data privacy, transparency, and accountability. Americans deserve to know when AI is being used, how their personal data is handled, and who is responsible when something goes wrong. Companies deploying AI at scale should be required to test for bias, protect sensitive information, disclose risks, and provide meaningful avenues for accountability.

Third, regulation must strengthen American leadership and competitiveness. We cannot afford to fall behind China or other competitors in this critical technology. That means investing in research and development, expanding workforce training, and supporting domestic innovation. It also means working with our allies to establish shared global norms, so democratic values—not authoritarian models—shape the future of AI.

Fourth, Congress must avoid rigid, one-size-fits-all rules or reactionary bans. Technology evolves quickly. Regulation should be flexible, evidence-based, and informed by experts, with regular review and updates as conditions change.

AI is not something to fear, but it is something to govern responsibly. With thoughtful policy, we can protect privacy, defend democracy, support workers, and unlock innovation.

Congress has a duty to ensure that AI serves the public good—not just corporate profits or foreign competitors. That is the balanced, forward-looking approach I will bring to this issue.

If Democrats win the House in 2026, how do you feel about calls for impeaching President Trump?

Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight, regardless of who is in the White House. That responsibility does not change based on party or political pressure. No president or administration is above the law.

If there are credible indications that the current administration has exceeded its legal authority, violated appropriations laws, interfered with independent institutions, or abused executive power, Congress has an obligation to investigate through proper, lawful channels. Accountability must be grounded in evidence, facts, and due process—not speculation or partisan agendas.

At the same time, impeachment should never be used as a political weapon. It is a serious constitutional remedy, not a messaging tool. We have seen what happens when impeachment is pursued without a realistic path to resolution: it can deepen divisions without strengthening accountability. President Trump was impeached twice, and because the Senate failed to act on the factual findings, the process ultimately did not resolve the underlying concerns.

That experience should guide us to do better. Oversight must be disciplined, strategic, and focused on protecting democratic institutions—not generating headlines or scoring political points. When laws are broken, Congress must act decisively. When there is no evidence, it should not manufacture controversy.

My focus is on restoring ethical standards, strengthening transparency, and reinforcing independent oversight through inspectors general, the courts, and congressional committees. That is how accountability becomes durable—not symbolic.

Restoring public trust requires leaders who apply the rule of law evenly, without fear, favoritism, or retaliation. If elected, I will approach oversight and impeachment with seriousness, restraint, and integrity—always guided by facts, constitutional responsibility, and what best serves our democracy.

If Democrats win the House, what issues should oversight committees investigate first?

Oversight should begin with one basic question: Is the executive branch following the law and respecting Congress’s constitutional role? Oversight is not about political retaliation. It is about accountability, transparency, ethics, and restoring public trust in government.

First, Congress should examine whether congressionally approved funds were delayed, redirected, or withheld for political reasons. Federal programs exist to serve people, not to reward or punish communities. When funds are blocked without legal justification, families, local governments, and essential services pay the price. Congress has a duty to understand why this happened and to prevent it from happening again.

Second, committees should review unilateral actions in foreign and national security policy. Decisions involving military force, sanctions, tariffs, and detention should not bypass congressional consultation or authorization. When presidents act alone in these areas, it weakens democratic accountability and shifts power away from the branch designed to debate and decide these serious questions.

Third, Congress must protect the independence of core institutions. Attacks on inspectors general, career civil servants, judges, and law enforcement officials undermine democratic norms and weaken confidence in government. Oversight should investigate any political interference that compromises professional judgment, lawful enforcement, or ethical standards.

Fourth, committees should assess whether federal agencies are operating competently, securely, and within their legal authority. This includes reviewing the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency and similar initiatives that disrupted services, accessed sensitive data improperly, or exceeded statutory limits. Efficiency cannot come at the expense of legality, security, or public trust.

Finally, oversight should focus on whether government programs are actually delivering results. Congress should evaluate major initiatives to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively, transparently, and in ways that improve people’s lives.

The standard must be consistent and nonpartisan: when laws are broken, corruption is tolerated, or authority is abused, Congress must act. When there is no evidence, Congress should not manufacture controversy. Responsible oversight strengthens democracy, protects constitutional balance, and ensures government works for the people it serves—not for politics.

What issues, if any, do you agree with Republicans on?

Progress happens when leaders focus on solving problems instead of scoring political points. I don’t see bipartisanship as a weakness. I see it as a responsibility to the people who sent us to govern.

I agree with many Republicans—and with most Americans—that government should work competently and responsibly, that waste and inefficiency should be reduced, and that families and small businesses deserve stability and predictability so they can plan for the future. We share common ground on strengthening domestic supply chains, investing in American manufacturing, and keeping the United States economically competitive in a rapidly changing world.

I also agree that national security and public safety matter. On foreign policy, I believe the U.S. should lead with strength and credibility, stand by democratic allies, and deter aggression—while avoiding reckless, unilateral actions that increase risks for our troops and our economy. On trade, I agree that we must protect American workers and industries, but we need smarter, more strategic policies that raise wages and lower costs, not tariffs that function as hidden taxes on families.

Where I often differ is not on the goals, but on HOW to achieve them. I believe in governing through facts, evidence, and serious negotiation—not ideology or performative politics. Real progress often comes from improving a bill, strengthening accountability, or securing a practical provision that helps people in the district, even if it doesn’t fit neatly into partisan talking points.

As a small business owner, educator, and policy professional, I’ve spent my career working with people who don’t always agree, finding common ground, and delivering results. That is the approach I will bring to Congress.

I’m running to represent Illinois’ 8th District—not to win arguments, chase headlines, or serve a party. I will work with any Democrat, Republican, or Independent who is serious about lowering costs, strengthening our economy, protecting our democracy, and delivering real results for the people we serve.

Should private equity and hedge funds be allowed to purchase so many homes?

Housing should first and foremost be a place for people to live, raise families, and build stability—not just another financial instrument. When private equity firms and hedge funds purchase large numbers of single-family homes, they can distort local housing markets, drive up prices, and make it harder for working families to buy or even rent homes they can afford.

The problem is not responsible investment. It is scale and impact. When large institutional investors crowd out first-time buyers, reduce available housing stock, and contribute to rising rents, communities pay the price. This is especially concerning in districts like ours, where families are already being squeezed by housing, property taxes, transportation, and healthcare costs.

Congress must take a serious look at how large-scale institutional ownership affects home prices, rents, and neighborhood stability. That includes improving transparency, strengthening reporting requirements, and ensuring that tax and housing policies do not unfairly favor large investors over individual homeowners and small, local landlords.

At the same time, we cannot pretend this issue exists in isolation. We are in a national housing shortage, and limited supply is the biggest driver of rising costs. The solution must include increasing housing supply through zoning reform, faster permitting, infrastructure investment, and incentives for workforce and starter homes.

Affordability requires balance. Families should have a fair shot at homeownership, renters should be protected from predatory practices, and housing policy should strengthen communities rather than treat them as commodities. That is the approach I would bring to Congress.

Do you support or oppose the expansion of work requirements for SNAP recipients? Why?

I oppose expanding work requirements for SNAP recipients because these policies do not address the real causes of food insecurity. Instead, they create bureaucratic barriers that push eligible people off assistance, including seniors, people with disabilities, caregivers, and low-wage workers who are already working.

SNAP is a critical lifeline that helps millions of Americans put food on the table during periods of job loss, illness, or economic transition. Expanding work requirements assumes people are not trying hard enough, when the reality is very different. Many recipients already work, are actively seeking work, or cannot work consistently due to health conditions, caregiving responsibilities, or unstable schedules.

Public policy should reflect real life, not outdated assumptions. Many SNAP rules are still built around rigid definitions of work and eligibility that do not match today’s economy or the realities faced by people with disabilities and working families. These requirements often create excessive red tape, delay benefits, and punish people for circumstances outside their control—without meaningfully increasing employment.

If Congress wants to help people succeed, the focus should be on access to good jobs, education, training, childcare, healthcare, and transportation—not on cutting off food assistance. SNAP should be paired with voluntary workforce programs and modernized rules that recognize fluctuating incomes and nontraditional work.

Food assistance is not a moral failing; it is a public good. Policies that increase hunger weaken families, communities, and the economy. I will work to protect SNAP, reduce unnecessary barriers, and ensure the program continues to function as the effective, efficient support system it was designed to be.

Who are your top donors? How often do you speak with them?

My campaign is powered by a broad, diverse group of supporters who reflect the 8th District and the values I’m running on. My donors include small business owners, educators, healthcare workers, veterans’ families, caregivers, working professionals, retirees, and longtime colleagues who believe in commonsense, responsible leadership and putting people over politics.

I’m especially proud that a significant share of our support comes from grassroots donors who give modest amounts because they believe in our message of competence, integrity, and practical problem-solving. These are people who are juggling mortgages, childcare, healthcare costs, and caring for aging parents—and still choose to invest in this campaign because they want a government that works.

I do not take money from corporate PACs or special interests that expect favors in return. My commitment is to voters first, always. Financial support should never buy access or influence, and I am determined to keep my campaign accountable and transparent.

I stay in regular contact with donors and supporters through weekly email updates, text messages, community events, and monthly thank-you messages. I also make myself—or a member of my team—available for phone calls, meetings, and follow-up conversations whenever supporters reach out. I value these conversations, not just for fundraising, but for listening and learning.

My donors regularly share ideas, concerns, and feedback about what’s happening in their communities, and that input helps shape my priorities. This campaign is not about building a political machine. It is about building a movement rooted in trust, service, and shared responsibility.

I am grateful for every person who supports this campaign, whether they give $10 or $1,000. Their investment represents faith in a better, more competent way forward—and I take that responsibility seriously.

Additionally, I will lead the effort to deliver campaign finance reform. We need less money, not more in politics, including in primaries.

Learn more at: www.SanjyotForCongress.com

How would you reform U.S. trade policy so that farms don’t need repeated bailouts from tariff impacts?

American farmers should never be collateral damage in trade wars. When tariffs are used unpredictably and without a clear strategy, they invite retaliation, close export markets, and leave agriculture paying the price—only for Washington to step in later with emergency bailouts. That is not smart policy, and it is not fair to rural communities.

Trade policy should be strategic, stable, and coordinated—not chaotic.

First, tariffs should be targeted and tied to clear economic and national security goals. If we use trade enforcement, it should focus on specific unfair practices such as dumping, forced labor, intellectual property theft, and illegal subsidies—not broad tariffs that raise prices for American consumers and trigger retaliation against farmers.

Second, the United States must work with allies instead of going it alone. Coordinated action with partners in Europe and Asia gives us far more leverage against unfair trade practices and reduces the likelihood that American agriculture becomes the easiest target for retaliation.

Third, we need to pair trade enforcement with a serious plan to strengthen domestic agricultural resilience. That means investing in processing facilities, cold storage, transportation infrastructure, broadband, and export logistics so farmers can move products efficiently and reach global markets reliably.

Fourth, farmers need predictable rules and stable market access. Farmers are small businesses who deserve our support and a level playing field against large conglomerates and erratic trade policies. Agriculture already faces risks from weather, supply chains, and global prices. What farmers cannot manage is constant policy whiplash from Washington. They deserve consistency so they can plan, invest, and grow.

Finally, we should expand trade promotion programs, strengthen export financing, and negotiate agreements that open markets for American agricultural products—especially for small and mid-sized farms.

In short, trade policy should protect American producers and workers through strategy, alliances, and long-term planning—not create avoidable harm that taxpayers then have to cover with repeated bailouts. My goal is a trade system that supports farmers, strengthens rural economies, and enhances America’s global competitiveness.