2026 Election Questionnaire: Phil Andrew, U.S. House of Representatives, 9th District

Name: Phil Andrew

What office are you seeking: U.S. Congress - 9th District

What is your political party?

What is your current age? 58

Occupation and employer: Founder and Principal, PAX Group, LLC (Crisis and Conflict Management Firm)

What offices, if any, have you previously held? I have not previously held an elected office.

City: Wilmette

Campaign website: www.philandrewforcongress.com

Education: DePaul University, College of Law, J.D.

University of Illinois, B.A., History

Community involvement: Since being shot in the Laurie Dann attack on Winnetka in 1988, I have been involved in all of the local gun violence prevention and community intervention groups across the Chicagoland area and State of Illinois.

I have also served on the board of the Ouilmette Foundation, a Wilmette-based nonprofit organization that partners with the Wilmette Park District to enhance local parks, facilities, and community programs. As part of that work, I co-founded and co-organize the Wilmette Open Water (WOW) race, which is an annual supported 1 mile swim that I started 8 years ago to benefit the Foundation, as well as ALS research.

I have coached swimming, as well as coached athletes on visualization to address the mental aspects of competitive swimming, for years on a pro bono basis for our local age group swimming program, NASA Wildkat Aquatics.

Although modest pay is required, I serve part-time as a Kenilworth police officer which I was primarily brought in to assist on a decades-old, unsolved, cold-case murder in the community.

As a gun violence survivor and former FBI agent and hostage negotiator, I am frequently invited to speak to school administrators, parents, and students, rotary clubs, chambers of commerce, religious and other organizations about gun violence prevention, public safety, and national security.

Marital status/Immediate family: I have been married to Michelle Reese Andrew for 32 years. We have 4 children, one recently commissioned from the U.S. Naval Academy as a Naval Officer, and two others preparing to serve our nation at the Naval Academy.

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

My first year in Congress will focus on three interconnected priorities to families in Illinois’ 9th District: secure in their economic futures, feeling safe in their communities, and confident in the integrity of our government. When people know their children are protected, their livelihoods are stable, and their government is accountable and working on their behalf, they can thrive.

Economic Security Through Strategic Investment and Workforce Training and Development

Families across the 9th District face an affordability crisis affecting housing, healthcare, groceries, and childcare. Addressing these pressures requires federal leadership that aligns economic policy with the realities working families face.

When it comes to housing, I will push for federal investment in mixed-use development near transit, streamlined approval processes that reduce construction costs, and preservation of naturally affordable housing.

I will fight for policies that lower costs and drive sustainable growth—cracking down on corporate price gouging, investing in domestic manufacturing to secure our supply chains, and expanding workforce partnerships among institutions like Loyola, Northwestern, and Oakton Community College, major employers, and training programs that lead to family-sustaining jobs. I’m excited to lead efforts to put the Ninth District at the forefront of AI and quantum innovation, leveraging assets like O’Hare and our freight rail network to power responsible growth in the global economy and I’ll work to green vacant lots, restore Great Lakes preservation funding, and prioritize infrastructure upgrades protecting communities.

Restoring Constitutional Governance and Working for the People

We are witnessing a dangerous concentration of executive power that undermines the checks and balances our democracy depends on. From unilateral military actions to unauthorized tariff implementations that raise costs for business and consumers demonstrate the urgent need for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority.

After more than two decades in federal law enforcement, I have seen how institutions can either protect the public or fail it. My first priority will be working with what is expected to be one of the largest new Congressional classes to restore accountability at every level of government. This includes passing legislation to impose automatic expiration dates on emergency executive powers, reforming the National Emergencies Act to prevent unauthorized fund redirection, and restoring the independence of Inspectors General.

Congress must reclaim its role by requiring legislative reauthorization for major policy initiatives, strengthening oversight through committee investigations, and demanding transparency from federal agencies. This is not about partisan resistance; it is about restoring the principle that consequential decisions belong in Congress, not concentrated in the hands of a few.

Community Safety and Gun Violence Prevention

Every family deserves to feel safe in their neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces. As a survivor of gun violence and a former FBI special agent, I bring both lived experience and professional expertise to this crisis.

Recent activities undertaken by ICE require immediate action. Their mandate has made our streets less safe: restoration of judicial warrant requirements, mandatory facility inspections, de-escalation training, and strict operational protocols are imperative. ICE agents are operating without proper training, transparency, or accountability challenging accepted legal frameworks and creating deadly consequences. ICE authorizes agents to forcibly enter homes using non-judicial administrative warrants, which is a constitutional violation. Forced home entry has always required judicial oversight.When families fear agents can break down doors without judicial approval and communities stop cooperating with law enforcement, public safety suffers.

Beyond the lawlessness and pandemonium of ICE, I will immediately work to build bipartisan coalitions to advance evidence-based public safety strategies that deliver results. This includes expanding background checks to close dangerous loopholes, implementing extreme risk protection orders that respect due process, and investing in community violence intervention programs proven effective nationwide.

Public safety extends beyond traditional law enforcement. We must address the root contributors to violence through improved mental health services, economic opportunity, and education. Effective solutions require coordination across law enforcement, healthcare, schools, and community organizations.

My approach is shaped by my experience as an FBI hostage negotiator, where success depended on listening first, building trust, and finding common ground in high-stakes situations. In Congress, I will bring that same discipline to governing: focused results that improve people’s lives, not political point-scoring.

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

Helping people in the district starts with serious, results-oriented representation. That means strong constituent services and active engagement so that people with real problems are heard clearly and consistently, not crowded out by lobbyists or bureaucracy.

And I do listen. Families across Illinois’ 9th District tell me they grapple with intersecting challenges I hear from parents concerned about how their adult kids will buy a house, how aging parents stretch savings against rising healthcare costs, and how they balance rising costs of groceries, childcare, insurance, and transportation. Political and economic instability, and the pace of technology transformation, are making many people feel the ground is shifting under them faster than they can adapt.

In some parts of the District, some people have shared that their healthcare or childcare costs are more than their rent or mortgage. Healthcare costs have outpaced wages since 2000, forcing families into debt over medical bills. My day-one priority is preserving ACA tax credits that help 26,000 Ninth District residents afford coverage, including gig workers, freelancers, and older job-seekers who find it takes longer to get back into the workforce. I’ll push to strengthen No Surprises Act enforcement, ending unexpected ambulance charges, and reform aggressive debt collection practices that can block families from obtaining stable housing.

Families feel squeezed by rising costs. Adding to that uncertainty, this administration has abused pocket rescissions, quietly delaying congressionally approved funds until they expire to cancel programs without votes and deny communities promised resources for childcare funding, mental health access and grant funding for food programs. I will work to ensure congressional funding allocations to the 9th District are delivered without interruption.

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

I will advocate for comprehensive federal funding that addresses the full spectrum of infrastructure needs critical to Illinois’ 9th District’s economic growth and quality of life.

Transportation and Traditional Infrastructure Our district requires significant federal investment in modernizing aging roads and bridges while strengthening public transit systems—including METRA and CTA connections—that serve as vital corridors connecting communities to employment centers. I will prioritize funding for infrastructure projects that incorporate climate resilience, protecting against flooding and extreme weather while improving access to transit and daily commutes. This includes upgrading transportation arteries, ensuring bridges meet modern safety standards, and enhancing connectivity to public transportation networks.

Housing and Transit Integration I support bold federal investment in affordable housing units strategically located near METRA stations and CTA lines, addressing both our housing crisis and transportation efficiency. This means funding mixed-use development near transit infrastructure, rehabilitation programs with affordability covenants, and streamlined permitting that reduces construction costs. Federal dollars should prioritize transit improvements that connect affordable housing to jobs through enhanced bus and rail service, reducing commute times and environmental impact.

Digital Infrastructure and Broadband In our increasingly connected economy, reliable high-speed internet access is as essential as roads and bridges. I will advocate for federal broadband infrastructure investment ensuring every family and business in our district has access to reliable, affordable internet. This digital infrastructure is crucial for supporting telehealth services, enabling remote work opportunities, facilitating small business growth, and ensuring our students can access educational resources regardless of location.

Clean Energy and Climate Infrastructure Federal investment in clean energy manufacturing and infrastructure serves both environmental and economic security. I will secure funding for solar, wind, and EV infrastructure development, particularly in communities facing disinvestment. This includes retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency, modernizing our electrical grid for renewable energy integration, and supporting job training programs that prepare workers for clean energy careers.

Workforce Development and Research Partnerships I will leverage federal funding to align our district’s research institutions with job pipelines and apprenticeship programs. This means investing in partnerships between universities, hospitals, and manufacturers that create family-sustaining careers in growing sectors like clean energy, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, AI and Quantum.

Environmental Resilience Federal funding should support initiatives to green vacant lots, restore Great Lakes preservation programs, and prioritize infrastructure upgrades protecting communities from flooding and pollution. This includes investments in green infrastructure and environmental remediation that protect natural resources and public health.

Accountability and Delivery I will ensure allocated funds reach their destinations without bureaucratic delays. I will demand clear timelines, public reporting, and verification that agencies release funds as Congress intends, while working to restore independent oversight mechanisms.

My approach prioritizes evidence-based investments that create good-paying jobs, improve quality of life, and build economic security. As someone experienced in solving complex problems under pressure, I will work across party lines to secure comprehensive federal investments our district needs to thrive.

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

As a political newcomer and a candidate who is not backed by political organizations I am unencumbered and will always put the needs of our district over the priorities of our party. (Contrary to two of the other candidates in this race, Laura Fine and Daniel Biss, I am also only seeking one office; they are both seeking two – Congress and State Committeeperson roles.)

As a former FBI hostage negotiator, I will always seek to use my consensus-building skills to align on all matters of mutual interest. Former U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s saying that all politics is local is something that this administration has flipped on its head. When I listen across IL-9, most voters are concerned about what is happening in Washington first and foremost so I will seek common ground on those issues within my party when elected.

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

Congress has indeed given up significant Article I powers during the Trump administration, fundamentally undermining constitutional checks and balances. I am deeply concerned with the dangerous direction that executive power has taken. Our constitutional system is built on the idea that major decisions belong in Congress, and not concentrated in the hands of a few.

The Trump executive branch has expanded its powers dramatically through unilateral foreign policy actions, economic tariffs, and military force authorizations without congressional consultation. This administration makes unilateral foreign-policy decisions without follow-through strategy, uses tariffs without congressional approval, and governs purely by executive action, violating constitutional checks and balances.

Congress must reclaim constitutional authority through three key actions:

First, reassert its power of the purse. Every major policy initiative should require congressional reauthorization and appropriation. This administration has abused loopholes like pocket rescissions, quietly delaying or withholding congressionally approved funds until money expires, to cancel programs without votes and override Congress’ authority.

Second, strengthen oversight mechanisms. This means robust committee investigations, demanding agency transparency, and confirmation hearings that vet nominees for competence and constitutional commitment, not loyalty. We must restore the independent Inspectors General this administration dismantled to shield itself from accountability.

Third, pass legislation limiting executive overreach. I support requiring congressional approval for significant trade actions, military deployments beyond 60 days, and emergency declarations extending beyond genuine crises.

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

My position on U.S. intervention is grounded in my experience in counterterrorism, intelligence, and hostage negotiations, where I learned that successful outcomes depend on strategic thinking, alliance-building, and constitutional governance, and not unilateral action or political theater.

Regarding Israel, I strongly support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself against terror, as experienced on October 7th, 2023. The United States must remain a strong and reliable partner in Israel’s security, and I support continuing U.S. funding and weapons to Israel as our reliable security partner. This aid is critical to regional stability, to our own security, and must align with broader peace objectives.

My vision prioritizes long-term safety for both Israelis and Palestinians through a two-state solution ensuring national sovereignty and security for both peoples. I support active U.S. diplomatic leadership to achieve sustainable peace, drawing lessons from the Good Friday Agreement model. This includes confidence-building measures, security reforms, and economic incentives while isolating terror networks and protecting civilians.

We must support Palestinian governance with comprehensive aid, and strengthen regional relations through expanded Abraham Accords. The November 2025 UN Security Council resolution, drafted by the U.S., provides a framework for stability and peace. Defense and humanitarian aid serves regional stability when coupled with diplomatic leadership toward sustainable peace.

On Venezuela, I strongly oppose unilateral military action without congressional authorization, a necessary part of our system of checks and balances. The recent military action to remove the Venezuelan president without a congressional vote or consulting key members of Congress was wrong. Removing a dictator is not the same as liberating a country. True liberation requires a comprehensive strategy that supports self-rule, brings stability, and prevents extremism. Without that strategy, regime change risks creating new threats instead of freedom from oppression.

Regarding Ukraine, I support strong partnerships with NATO and global institutions, continued aid to allies like Ukraine, and a shift from endless war to conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

I’m deeply concerned about the dangerous expansion of executive power that circumvents Congress’s essential role in authorizing military action. The current administration’s approach to foreign policy has been chaotic, unilateral, and personal, eroding trust with allies and creating risk and uncertainty. Major decisions affecting our national security should involve congressional deliberation, not unilateral executive action.

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?

I support requiring congressional approval for significant trade actions, military deployments beyond 60 days, and emergency declarations extending beyond genuine crises. America’s role in the world must be rooted in integrity, strategic cooperation, and commitment to peace. We must confront authoritarian threats abroad while defending democracy at home. America is strongest when we lead by example, not fear, through principled engagement that upholds constitutional principles while addressing genuine security threats through collaborative, alliance-based approaches.

I am committed to a foreign policy that strengthens America’s security, keeps people safe, and values liberty, respect, human dignity, and rejects hate and extremism. My wife, Michelle, and I have a direct personal stake, as three of our four children serve in the U.S. Navy.

I am deeply concerned with the dangerous direction that executive power has taken. Our constitutional system is built on the idea that major decisions belong in Congress—not concentrated in the hands of a few.

Presidents require flexibility in real emergencies and have power to enforce laws. But governing purely by executive action, whether through tariffs, executive orders, authorization of military force, and enacting major foreign policy decisions violates the intentional checks and balances our country was founded upon.

The path forward requires Congress to strip away the blank checks of power that it has signed over to presidents during the last several decades. This means passing legislation that adds automatic expiration dates to all emergency executive powers and reforming the National Emergencies Act to prevent the redirection of funds without a specific legislative appropriation. Most of all, it requires a fundamental change in culture in which both Democrats and Republicans recognize the value of the legislative process and cross the aisle to serve the people first, not their respective political party.

Today’s Congress is more divided than the American people. Its productivity level for legislative passage is the lowest it’s been in the past 25 years. The Members in the majority refuse to stand up to a president they disagree with privately but publicly support fearing retribution, which is a sad reality. We need courageous leaders willing to negotiate, enact legislative controls and return constitutional powers to Congress.

What should U.S. border policy be? If elected, what would you do to make it happen?

A new Congress must work toward comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes the positive contributions migration brings to our country and economy. If an immigrant is here illegally and has committed a violent crime, they should be removed.

Border enforcement is only one pillar of immigration policy. Real reform also requires processes that protect people fleeing persecution while keeping communities safe. When systems fail families, workers, business and communities, criminal networks and exploitative actors take advantage.

We need clear, workable policies that:

Improve our technology infrastructure to vet migrants and prevent entry by those with criminal histories.
Direct enforcement resources to drug trafficking and criminal networks.
Fix the broken asylum system and reduce the backlog of pending cases.
Create a process for earned legalization for law-abiding people who’ve built lives here, paid taxes, and established strong community ties. (Many are parents of U.S. citizens and even military veterans, who have been here for decades.)

Our economy relies on millions of immigrant workers who create jobs and pay taxes, including undocumented immigrants who contribute billions annually.

Immigration policy should make people safer and systems more credible. When enforcement operates within clear legal boundaries and is targeted, restrained, and accountable, communities stabilize and trust can begin to recover. I know what effective federal law enforcement looks like to increase public trust and safety and will rely on my 21 years in the FBI to bring effective reform and oversight on immigration in Congress.

Enforcement exists for a reason: to remove genuine threats to public safety – not to terrorize families or pressure people into self-deportation. Using intimidation as policy undermines legitimacy, weakens cooperation with law enforcement, and ultimately makes communities less safe. In Congress, I would apply the same principles I used as a negotiator to this hot-button issue: calm, deliberate, evidence-based decision making, even under pressure.

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

Yes.

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

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was established with the stated goal of making government work better and cutting waste. That is an objective most people in Illinois’ 9th District can support. Families, seniors, veterans, and small businesses all want an efficient government that delivers services effectively. But based on existing reporting and my experience the way DOGE has been implemented raises serious concerns about safeguards, institutional integrity, and the protection of Americans’ personal information. In key respects, DOGE has gone too far.

One of the most serious concerns involves DOGE personnel being granted broad access to sensitive government data, including personal records that, by law, are typically accessible only to properly vetted and cleared federal employees. Courts and privacy advocates have repeatedly raised alarms that DOGE sought access to Social Security numbers, bank account information, employment records, and other personally identifiable information from agencies such as the Social Security Administration and the Office of Personnel Management. These systems are not abstract databases; they contain deeply personal information belonging to millions of Americans, including workers, retirees, and families in Illinois’ 9th District. The Privacy Act of 1974 exists precisely to limit this type of access, and multiple lawsuits have alleged violations of those protections.

In some cases, temporary court orders blocked DOGE access to Treasury and Social Security systems because of the risks posed to personal data. Members of Congress from both parties have also raised concerns about the lack of clear vetting, accountability, and oversight for DOGE employees handling sensitive or classified information.

These data access issues reflect a broader pattern. Effective reform requires discipline, evidence, and respect for institutions. Instead, DOGE has been marked by institutional disrespect and decisions driven more by ideology and politics than by outcomes. Across federal agencies, including those responsible for public safety and national security, abrupt firings, reductions in force, and the dismantling of offices have weakened capacity rather than strengthened performance. When experienced professionals are pushed out without credible workforce planning, the result is not efficiency. It is increased risk, slower response times, and diminished accountability.

I have seen firsthand how institutions can either protect people or fail them. Staffing levels, training, and continuity matter in law enforcement and national security. Gutting agencies responsible for complex missions undermines morale, drives away expertise, and ultimately leaves communities less safe. In Illinois’ 9th District, this is not theoretical. Families rely on federal agencies to process benefits, protect civil rights, support research institutions, and coordinate public safety with state and local partners. When agencies are destabilized, real people feel the consequences.

The government can and should be improved. However, efficiency cannot be an excuse to weaken the rule of law, jeopardize sensitive data, or erode public trust. True reform strengthens institutions, protects citizens, and fosters confidence. Reform should not include chaos and it should be done with dignity and respect.

How will you work across the aisle to pass legislation?

I’ve worked on gun violence prevention in settings where progress depended on building support beyond one party. One example is my work with the Brady Campaign, where the goal was not just to advance policy, but to intentionally recruit and engage Republicans who were open to a public safety approach to guns.

That work required patience and trust. It meant listening seriously to concerns, especially from people who did not start from the same ideological place, and focusing the conversation on shared goals like safety, responsibility, and preventing harm rather than partisan labels. My role was often less about persuasion in the abstract and more about creating enough goodwill that people were willing to stay at the table and move together.

What that experience taught me is that meaningful progress in Washington is usually slow and incremental. It almost never comes from political dominance alone, and it rarely lasts if it does. Durable change happens when coalitions are broad enough to survive shifts in power and grounded enough to earn legitimacy.

Gun violence is a good example of this. It is an issue where strong Democratic leadership matters, but where lasting solutions also require bringing along people who may not agree on everything. If we want laws that actually reduce harm and hold up over time, we need statesmanship, not just votes.

That approach, building trust, working across divides, and focusing on outcomes rather than posturing, is how I have worked in the past – particularly in my work as an FBI hostage negotiator, and how I would approach working across the aisle in the future.

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

Yes, I support term limits for House members. As someone who has dedicated my career to public service rather than building a political career, I believe in term limits, constitutional principles, and putting people before politics.

My fundamental belief is Congress has strayed too far from the founders’ vision of citizen legislators who serve their communities and then return to private life. The concentration of power in the hands of career politicians undermined the constitutional system our democracy depends upon. We need representatives who come to Congress to solve problems, and not to build lifelong political careers.

I realize the unlikelihood of term limits passing anytime soon with all of the other priorities. I will commit to a self-imposed term limit of 5 terms (10 years total), if elected to serve IL-9.

What is your stance on border security and immigration reform?

A new Congress must work toward comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes the positive contributions migration brings to our country and economy. If an immigrant is here illegallyandhas committed a violent crime, they should be removed.

We need clear, workable policies that:

Improve our technology infrastructure to vet migrants and prevent entry by those with criminal histories.
Direct enforcement resources to drug trafficking and criminal networks.
Fix the broken asylum system and reduce the backlog of pending cases.
Create a process for earned legalization for law-abiding people who’ve built lives here, paid taxes, and established strong community ties. (Many are parents of U.S. citizens and even military veterans, who have been here for decades.)

Our economy relies on millions of immigrant workers who create jobs and pay taxes, including undocumented immigrants who contribute billions annually.

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

Social Security and Medicare represent fundamental promises we’ve made to Americans, promises that must be kept while honestly addressing the demographic and fiscal pressures both programs face. At the same time, abrupt changes that push risk onto seniors or near-retirees are unacceptable.

I do not support across-the-board increases to the retirement age, which would disproportionately harm people in physically demanding jobs and those with shorter life expectancies. Means testing sounds appealing but risks undermining the program’s universal structure and political durability.

We should not ask people living on the margins to receive less while millionaires and billionaires continue to benefit from caps on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes. It’s time to increase the cap so high earners contribute more, implement gradual changes well in advance to protect those close to retirement, and explore modest revenue enhancements paired with benefit protections for low and middle-income retirees.

Federal pension reform in the 1980s offers a useful precedent as we consider how to strengthen Social Security today. Faced with an unsustainable retirement system, policymakers chose modernization over neglect. They acted early, shared responsibility, and did so in a bipartisan manner that preserved retirement security while adapting to demographic and workforce realities. This is what thoughtful reform looks like and it is far preferable to crisis-driven decisions born of inaction. Social Security deserves the same serious deliberation and reform.

For Medicare, strengthening the program requires addressing the underlying drivers of healthcare costs. I support empowering Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices and reining in pharmaceutical profiteering. These reforms would ease pressure on household budgets while strengthening Medicare’s long-term sustainability without cutting benefits or pushing more risk onto seniors and families.

What should Congress do to address healthcare affordability?

People everywhere struggle to keep up with rising prices and health care is at the center of many of these conversations. Since 2000, premiums and deductibles have far outpaced wages. No family should fall into debt or face bankruptcy due to medical bills. Americans deserve quality, affordable healthcare and the government must play a fundamental role in assuring care.

I support the Affordable Care Act because it expands access and provides basic healthcare protections for millions of Americans. In 2025, roughly 26,000 people in the Ninth Congressional District received tax credits to help them pay for coverage through the ACA.

Its coverage provides predictability and flexibility for the present gig economy where people are juggling multiple jobs, freelancing, taking on creator roles and entrepreneurial pursuits. And, the ACA is vital for people who are “right sized”, or time out on prohibitively expensive COBRA options as they job-search. This is especially true for older workers who do not yet qualify for Medicare.

In Congress, I will work to protect and improve the ACA by:

Preserving and stabilizing tax credits that cap ACA premiums
Drive greater efficiency, transparency, and competition throughout the health care system, including the drug supply chain with Pharmacy Benefit Management companies and drug manufacturers
Increase enforcement of the No Surprises Act, a gap that needs closing so patients do not receive charges for emergency ambulance transportation
Reform the practices of aggressive debt collection that can block families from obtaining stable housing and increases the risk into financial instability

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

No. The CDC under RFK Jr.’s leadership is not a trustworthy source of information. He has undermined evidence-based science in protecting public health and has injected political ideology into the CDC’s decision making.

Among its most visible and damaging action is changing vaccine guidelines without established medical review and dismissing all 17 members of the Vaccine Advisory Committee, reversing decades of evidence-based research that has protected millions of adults and children from infectious diseases. This action, and others, have prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy of Family Physicians, The American Medical Association, and others to challenge legally.

Evidence-based health policy is essential. Policy updates should be driven by new data, not ideology.

How should Congress regulate artificial intelligence, if at all?

Like every major innovation before AI, it should be studied independently and governed with clear, evidence-based rules. The goal isn’t to slow progress; it’s to make sure AI strengthens our economy, protects Americans’ safety and well-being, and safeguards our national security.

Congress should start by establishing independent, expert-driven oversight so that regulations are based on facts, rigorous research, and real-world evidence, not lobbyists for profit-driven companies. Regulation should focus on high-risk uses of AI, require transparency and accountability, and ensure humans remain responsible for critical decisions that affect people’s lives (like the military has done with their powerful technology).

At the same time, we must be careful not to stifle innovation. Smart regulation creates trust and certainty, which actually helps responsible businesses and researchers and our economy grow.

Finally, the United States must lead. We cannot afford to outsource AI standards to other countries, as we’ve done in the past with issues like climate change. American values — fairness, accountability, and democratic oversight — should shape the global rules of the road for AI.

That’s how we protect people, strengthen security, and ensure innovation serves the public good.

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

We will need to hold this administration accountable for the next two years but I would rather focus on solving problems, then spending time with the impeachment process. We are a nation divided and need to start focusing on the issues that unite us as a country, like affordable healthcare and immigration reform that is compassionate.

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

If elected, my first priority will be to assemble a team of principled leaders—especially in what is expected to be one of the largest new Congressional classes—to align on how to demand accountability at every level of government, starting with the Department of Justice and FBI, and restoring the independence of Inspectors General. The Department of Justice needs to ensure public trust is restored, particularly after the recent events in Minneapolis. I’ll leverage my experience as an FBI hostage negotiator, where I resolved problems under extreme pressure, to bring people together across divides and deliver results. At the same time, I will immediately begin building bipartisan coalitions to enact real, federal-level reforms to prevent gun violence, protecting our children and communities from the tragedies I’ve spent my life confronting firsthand, and which the majority of our country demand.

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

I agree with Republicans that we need comprehensive immigration reform, a strong national defense, and serious reforms to prevent fraud and abuse in government programs. These are not partisan concerns; they are core responsibilities of a functioning federal government. Where I differ is in how we achieve them. Solutions must be grounded in evidence, consistent with our constitutional values, and designed to make the country safer and more stable, not more divided.

On immigration, the current system is failing families, workers, businesses, and communities alike. Enforcement is necessary, but enforcement alone is not a policy. A credible system starts with clear priorities: people who are here illegally and have committed violent crimes should be removed. At the same time, we must recognize the economic and social reality that millions of immigrants – many of whom have lived here for decades, paid taxes, raised families, and even served in the military – are woven into the fabric of our communities and economy.

Real reform requires multiple pillars working together. That includes modernizing technology to better vet entrants and identify genuine threats, directing enforcement resources toward drug trafficking and organized criminal networks rather than indiscriminate sweeps, fixing a broken asylum system that leaves people in limbo for years, and creating an earned legalization process for law-abiding individuals with deep community ties. When systems are unclear or dysfunctional, criminal networks exploit the gaps and trust collapses. When rules are clear, targeted, and enforced within legal boundaries, communities stabilize and public safety improves.

I’ve seen firsthand what effective federal enforcement looks like—and what happens when enforcement is driven by politics instead of outcomes. Enforcement exists to remove real threats to public safety, not to terrorize families or pressure people into self-deportation. Policies based on intimidation weaken cooperation with law enforcement, undermine legitimacy, and ultimately make communities less safe. In Congress, I would bring the same calm, deliberate, evidence-based approach I used as a negotiator under pressure: define the problem accurately, prioritize real risks, and act in ways that reduce harm rather than escalate it.

The same principles apply to national defense and government accountability. A strong defense depends not just on spending levels, but on discipline, oversight, and strategy. Likewise, preventing fraud and abuse in government programs requires targeting real wrongdoing without burying honest families in red tape or undermining the programs people rely on. Accountability and compassion are not in conflict—they reinforce each other when policy is designed well.

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

No, this is another area that requires independent, factual study and smart regulation to protect people and ensure a fair economy.

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

I support reasonable work requirements for SNAP recipients when they are designed to reduce fraud and waste and ensure the program remains sustainable. At the same time, reforms must be compassionate and practical. We should never create needless barriers for people who cannot work, such as those with permanent disabilities, serious health conditions, or caregiving responsibilities.

The goal should be to protect our most vulnerable while making sure taxpayer dollars are used transparently and effectively. That means strong safeguards, clear exemptions, and policies that help people who can work connect to jobs or training – without cutting off food assistance for those who truly need it. If we get this balance right, SNAP can both uphold accountability and continue to be a lifeline for families facing hardship.

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

I am proud that many of my donors have never been involved in politics before and are first time givers. Among them is Harry Kraemer, former CEO of Baxter, who has taught at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Harry’s teaching (and books) are anchored in Values Based Leadership. When we first met, he said that he is not sure we’ll agree on all policies but he knows my reputation and service within our community, and that I’ll serve with integrity. He is motivated to get involved given the chaos and corruption coming from Washington. Harry and I speak every few weeks.

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

We need to reform trade policy, so farmers aren’t collateral damage of tariff wars that require repeated bailouts. First, Congress should reclaim its constitutional role: any new tariffs that raise prices across the economy should require congressional approval, not unilateral executive action. Decisions with sweeping economic consequences belong in Congress, where the tradeoffs are debated openly and predictably.

Second, I would reverse the Trump-era tariffs. In practice, tariffs are a tax on American consumers and producers alike. They raise input costs, invite retaliation against U.S. agricultural exports, and force farmers to rely on emergency aid to survive. At a time when families are already paying more for groceries, energy, housing, and healthcare, adding inflation through tariffs only deepens the problem.

Tariffs are also the wrong way to raise revenue. They are highly inflationary and hit working families and retirees first. If we need revenue, we should raise it where the money actually is—corporate profits—not by embedding hidden taxes into everyday goods. Asking highly profitable multinational corporations to contribute more is far less disruptive than taxing consumption through trade policy.

A stable trade policy—one that lowers inflation, avoids retaliatory shocks to farm exports, and restores congressional oversight—would reduce uncertainty for farmers and eliminate the need for repeated bailouts. Trade policy should create stability and fairness in the economy, not force taxpayers to clean up after self-inflicted crises.