Name: Sam Polan

What office are you seeking: US House of Representatives, IL-09

What is your political party? Democrat

What is your current age? 36

Occupation and employer: Unemployed

What offices, if any, have you previously held? No previous offices held.

City: Wilmette, IL

Campaign website: www.sampolan.com

Education: I graduated from New Trier High School in Wilmette. I went to Washington College in Eastern MD for my undergraduate degree in Political Science and later American University in DC for my graduate degree in International Relations. I also attended an academic residency at Oxford University in 2012.

Community involvement: Evanston, IL Veterans Center. My most recent volunteer work was joining a group of veterans to volunteer Hilda’s Place, a Homeless Shelter located in Evanston, IL. I try to participate in other volunteer opportunities while balancing my Congressional campaign schedule.

Marital status/Immediate family: I am not married and I have no children.

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

My priorities are simple: make life more affordable, protect our democracy and the rule of law, and restore competence and trust in our government. First, let’s talk about affordability. Families in this district are being crushed every day by rising costs, especially for housing, healthcare, food, and childcare. One my first actions would be working to repeal the tariffs applied by the administration. They only place an additional burden on the American consumer. I want to center on expanding housing supply, cutting unnecessary federal barriers to construction, and pushing for oversight that lowers costs without sacrificing quality. Regarding healthcare, I support universal access, but I do not support a single-payer model that eliminates private insurance. I believe the more choices people have, the better options they have for the care they require. We should build on the Affordable Care Act by broadening coverage, lowering the real costs, and making the system easier to navigate. It’s 2026, we live in the wealthiest nation in history, and there is no excuse for how faulty our medical system is.

Second, protecting democracy and our republic. I’ve worked inside the federal government at the highest levels, and I’ve seen how fragile our systems are when leaders ignore oversight responsibilities, stretch the rules, or treat institutions like their own personal weapons, and not as entities for the people. Congress needs to reassert its constitutional authority, strengthen transparency, and hold any administration accountable for violations and abuses of authority, regardless of party.

Third, government competence and reform. I’m not interested in symbolic gestures. I want to prioritize practical legislation, exercising meaningful oversight authority, and producing tangible results people can see in their daily lives.

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

Right now, our democratic norms are under real pressure. Congress has a responsibility to act as a guardrail and has the authority to do so as the first among equal branches. As a member of the House, I would focus on protecting the rule of law, defending the independence of institutions, and ensuring that federal power is exercised within clear and defined legal boundaries. I strongly support more aggressive oversight of the executive branch, amplifying and enforcing the existing limits on emergency authorities, and tirelessly defending the independence of courts, inspectors general, and career civil servants from political retaliation.

Regarding Illinois and the 9th specifically, I would fight to protect the integrity of our elections, people’s right to vote, and the ability of state and local governments to govern without federal coercion. That includes opposing efforts to politicize federal funding, undermine election administration, or use federal agencies to punish our state for partisan reasons. Democracy does not maintain itself. It depends on people in government who are willing to actively defend it. That means making it known that we will show up, ask the difficult questions, exercise real oversight, and build bipartisan coalitions when possible. It also means having the discipline to say no when any administration, regardless of party, exceeds its lawful authority or tries to erode the checks and balances that protect the public.

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

Last year, Illinois’ Governor Pritzker unveiled a $50.6 billion six-year infrastructure plan for the state’s roads, bridges, railways, airports, and more. About half the road and bridge funding, roughly $15.8 billion, is expected to come from the federal government. I think it is beneficial when state governments work with the federal government to improve the overall infrastructure as it helps all Americans. As a Representative it is my responsibility to ensure that money is delivered as promised. Taking care of our critical infrastructure sectors is taking care of Americans. Neglecting these will result in preventable disasters ranging from healthcare to transportation to the electrical grid. I would push to get federal funding into the state to update and repair aging infrastructure to safeguard Americans and close vulnerability gaps.

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

As a Representative, my first and foremost priority will be that of my district. The party is not the one electing me and they are certainly not the ones who are looking out for the best interest of Americans. I will implement a constituent office where anyone in my district can reach me. Many elected officials only have a constituent office open in practice, but I intend to give it the appropriate time and concern. The only reason my office exists is to serve my constituents, pure and simple. Additionally, I feel that the youth has long been neglected by elected officials. If elected, I will hold regular student roundtables across the district, including at high schools, community colleges, and universities. I will create direct channels for student to raise issues directly to my office. I also want to build internship and mentoring opportunities that give students a real look at how government works and how to change it. There is no such thing as being too young to participate. When students and young people get involved early, they buy into our country, and they can make real, lasting differences throughout their lives.

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

While Congress didn’t formally give up its Article I powers, it has certainly chosen not to exercise them on many occasions when dealing with the Trump administration. The current Republican majority has more often than not, deferred to President Trump and the Executive branch because they share the same political party. I believe this is unacceptable behavior by all our elected officials and ultimate a failure at governance. Deferring to the President and not listening to the concerns of the people who elected you is a good sign that you are failing at your primary job. Congress has not issued an official declaration of war since World War II, but the level of input that Congress has had on major military actions in the last few decades should be cause for serious change. Specific actions that have occurred during President Trump’s first and second terms in office include strikes in Syria, the assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) General Soleimani, and more recently the strikes on alleged drug traffickers, and finally the kidnapping of Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro.

Congressional authority has not been lost, it has simply been ceded due to partisanship where members have been more loyal to party presidents than to the institution. Some of the steps I would take to check the Executive overreach include reclaiming war powers. No more allowing the President free reign to conduct global military operations without Congressional oversight and approval. After 30-60 days, funding for the operations should be automatically cut unless Congress votes to approve continued operations. Second, the National Emergencies Act is long overdue a reform. Congress should narrow what counts as an emergency to limit Executive powers and emergencies should expire unless Congress approves them, not continue unless Congress overrides a Presidential veto. Third, and importantly, Congress should bring back inherent contempt that levies fines or detention for defying Congressional subpoenas. Lastly, something that I will strive to do is rebuild institutional loyalty over party loyalty. Internal norms need to change so that committee power, not party leadership, drives oversight. Members should be incentivized politically to defend Congress, as an institution created to serve the American people, even when it hurts their party.

American leadership means standing firm against authoritarian wars of territorial conquest and defending the principle that sovereign states will always have the right to determine their own future. That principle is at the heart of the NATO alliance and has maintained Europe’s stability for decades.Supporting Ukraine is also about our own security. A sovereign and free Ukraine will reinforce our allies, buffer Russian aggression, and send a clear message to other authoritarian regimes that wars of expansion will not go unchallenged. We must be sure that we are steadfast in our commitment to Ukraine and our allies through continuous military assistance, economic support, and sanctions against Russia. We must use every tool available to maintain pressure on Russia until Ukraine achieves a just and lasting peace.

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

The situation in the Middle East, and specifically Israel’s ongoing sustained operations in Gaza, is not one with a simple solution. I believe in continuing military aid to Israel, but I also believe in holding our allies accountable just like we hold Ukraine accountable with their use of U.S. military aid. I believe in the state of Israel and its continued existence, but I also support a two state solution that all relevant parties agree on. I support the United States leading diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the war in Gaza. Lasting peace and stability require that Israel’s right to security be guaranteed and that Palestinians be able to live without fear of violence, forced displacement, or deprivation. The United States must continue to work with regional partners and international organizations to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches civilians in need, and Hamas or other terrorist groups do not divert that aid. I also oppose any forced displacement of populations and any unilateral territorial changes in Gaza or the West Bank. Those actions would undermine security and any effort to achieve a viable two-state solution. American diplomacy must remain focused on securing the release of hostages, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorist organizations, while working toward a diplomatic outcome where Palestinians can live under a free and sovereign government.

I do not support unilateral foreign policy actions against Venezuela taken by this or any administration. These actions were irresponsible and have and will cause second and third order consequences that have not been fully acknowledged. Our credibility on the international stage comes from coalition building and adhering to international norms. We can acknowledge the good of removing Maduro, but we need to be aware of what comes next and remain committed to the situations we started. That is both a moral and strategic imperative.

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?

Yes, I believe the President should have the constitutional authority to order military strikes, but I do not agree with the capture and detaining of a foreign sovereign leader who we were not formally at war with. The President has constitutional authority to conduct limited military operations because the Executive and Legislative branches do not operate at the same pace. One of them was established to draft and pass lasting legislation, while the other is able to quickly implement and execute actions, within the confines of the existing laws. In the event that the United States is attacked by an aggressor, the Executive needs the power to act quickly because the Legislative branch was not designed to move quickly. Congress requires coalitions and majority agreements to pass laws or make decisions. Without Executive power to act militarily prior to Congressional approval, the U.S. would be hamstrung when reacting to attacks. Congress fully has the power to rein in the Executive on military operations such as cutting off funding after 30-60 days unless the Executive receives Congressional approval to continue operations. The Trump administration has been able to conduct its military operations without restraint because the Democratic minority in Congress doesn’t have the votes needed to overrule the Republican majority who have chosen to defer power to the President. Partisanship has eroded the institution of Congress and members now hold more loyalty to their party than the American people they have sworn to serve.

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

Absolutely. During President Trump’s first term, he signed the U.S.-Taliban agreement to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan. This agreement was a major policy failure with countless operational breakdowns. It should be highlighted that President Trump signed this agreement and then President Biden was obligated to enforce it, taking all the blame for its failures by those who are ignorant of the history of the agreement. The U.S. definitely should have withdrawn from Afghanistan, but President Trump did not consider the second and third order effects when he signed the deal with the Taliban. I believe he just wanted to say he brokered a deal without considering the consequences.

The Trump administration’s border enforcement has been almost wholly enabled by the emergency powers that have not been updated since the act was passed in 1976. It is up to Congress to update the National Emergencies Act and adjust the scope of the Executive’s powers.

Most recently, the militarization of the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency is completely unnecessary. The current Congressional failure at passing an actual budget enabled the Executive to divert billions to ICE. Loyalty to political party has eroded Congress’ ability to apply effective oversight. The shootings of American citizens in Minneapolis by ICE agents are tragic events, but even more shocking is the complete lack of concern by the Trump administration. Their claim that the shootings will be investigated by the ICE agency itself is completely unacceptable. There should be a bipartisan Congressional investigation launched into the shootings. The use of “administrative” warrants, which are signed by ICE or DHS leadership, should be investigated as regular law enforcement require judicial warrants to enter private property. Finally, the detaining of individuals without reasonable cause or suspicion is completely illegal.

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

Yes. I saw first hand just how inefficient the nongovernmental Department of Government Efficiency was during my time in the federal service. All of DOGE employees were not vetted individuals, yet they were being given access to confidential, and at many times, classified material during their audits of various government agencies. Actual government employees undergo rigorous background checks and onboarding before they can begin their work, but DOGE was given full access to infiltrate Executive branch agencies by the President himself. Again, President Trump showed a clear lack of judgement when he approved the establishment of DOGE and the seemingly unfettered access to U.S. government data ranging from Social Security to Immigration data to IRS tax data. Before stepping away from the civil service to run for Congress, I witnessed DOGE conduct large scale firings on a very irregular basis. Some offices reported that all employees with 10 years or less being fired, others where those with 10 years or more being fired, and then some offices DOGE would start from the front or back of the alphabet and fire employees until they met some unknown “quota”.

How will you work across the aisle to pass legislation?

I firmly believe that to be effective in Congress, you must be willing and able to work across the aisle. The members of Congress who are there to uphold some made-up party line are holding back the country’s progress, and it is time for them to make way for Americans who can work with others. Our job in Congress is not to play party politics; it is to serve the American people by working together, passing legislation that benefits them, and, importantly, developing a budget that appropriately funds the government in a manner that aligns with the will of the people.

I’ve been working with people my entire adult life. First, I served as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army for nearly a decade. As an Air Defense Artillery officer, I was required to work with other branches of the Army and the U.S. military. During my first deployment to the Middle East, my job required me to coordinate and work with the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Kuwaiti military. All these entities had different goals and objectives, and it was up to me, as the officer in charge of a Patriot missile battery, to ensure we were working effectively and in a concerted effort towards shared goals. Following my time in Air Defense Artillery, I attended one of the most grueling and difficult military training courses, assessments, and selection for Army Special Operations. For two weeks, candidates were constantly observed on their ability to work with others, both in leadership and team-member roles. Working effectively with others is a requirement for serving in Special Operations, as is keeping a calm head in often stressful and hazardous environments.

I deployed twice more to the Middle East, serving as the Civil-Military Operations Center Chief on a Special Operations Task Force. My job required me to work closely with Navy SEAL Teams V and VII and to advise senior special operations leaders on partner engagement, stability operations, information warfare, and counterinsurgency strategy. Regularly, I would engage with foreign militaries and governments requiring consistent negotiation and compromise to achieve positive results for the U.S. and our partners.

After the Army, I served as Senior Strategy, Policy, and Plans Liaison at the Pentagon for NORAD and USNORTHCOM. I coordinated with the Joint Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and interagency partners on U.S. Homeland Defense. I advised leaders on operational risk, strategic planning, and continuity of government while contributing to national campaigns, crisis responses, and executive directives. All of these experiences have prepared me to build and work with coalitions of fellow Congress members to craft legislation and pass laws that will benefit the majority of Americans.

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

Yes, I support term limits for House members as well as Senate members. I know it will take dedicated lawmakers to make the change, but I think changing the House terms from 2 years to 3 and then applying terms limits of 4 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate would be beneficial. Both chambers would allow for 12 years of service, but the term limits would help ensure that new generations of Americans were running for office and effectively representing as society adapts to changes in technology, medicine, the climate, etc.

What is your stance on border security and immigration reform?

A secure border is a necessary requirement for national security. However, we need a comprehensive immigration policy in combination with a secure border. I believe both documented and undocumented workers living in the U.S. should be provided with a pathway to citizenship.What we need is comprehensive immigration reform that secures the border, restores order to our immigration courts, protects asylum seekers, and rebuilds the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Immigrants have continually strengthened the United States. A comprehensive plan should combine robust enforcement and border security with a fair, humane, and efficient legal immigration system. That means protecting those fleeing persecution while also ensuring communities are not overwhelmed by dysfunction in the system. Reform should be bipartisan, practical, and rooted in both security and compassion.

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

Social Security is a financial relief for many older Americans. In order to maintain the system, we will need to make serious changes. If the Social Security program is to continue for future generations, the payroll tax cap will likely need to be reviewed and adjusted to account for the higher population and address some of the wealth disparity. I don’t support raising the age of eligibility as Americans pay into the program their entire working life, so telling them they won’t have access to it until even later is unacceptable.

What should Congress do to address healthcare affordability?

I categorically oppose any and all cuts to Medicaid and Medicare and will vote against H.R. 1 or any legislation that reduces eligibility, benefits, or reimbursement. I stand firm in defending Medicaid’s long-term services and supports while insisting on strengthening Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) as a direct alternative to institutional care. Access to healthcare is essential infrastructure and a fundamental human right; it is not a welfare program and must be defended as such without compromise.

Regarding healthcare, I support universal access, but I do not support a single-payer model that eliminates private insurance. I believe the more choices people have, the better options they have for the care they require. We should build on the Affordable Care Act by broadening coverage, lowering the real costs, and making the system easier to navigate. It’s 2026, we live in the wealthiest nation in history, and there is no excuse for how faulty our medical system is.

My number one priority is keeping healthcare affordable and predictable. That will start with renewing the ACA subsidies that are constantly up for debate. Right now, families cannot afford to be hit with massive premium spikes. I also want stronger cost controls that target reducing redundant and unnecessary treatments. That includes oversight on hospital billing practices, pharmacy distributors, and out-of-network charges. We should protect coverage for pre-existing conditions and expand access to mental health care with real enforcement of parity laws.

In the longer term, our healthcare systems should be streamlined and simplified. People should be able to get care without spending hours doing redundant paperwork, and pricing should be transparent enough so that patients can make well-informed decisions without feeling pressured. Our country needs a stronger emphasis on primary care and preventive care. Care should prioritize overall health rather than the volume of care. I also believe there is a place for competition to encourage lower prices and help standardize systems to avoid redundancies and administrative waste.

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

No, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been drastically eroded as an institution since RFK Jr. became the Health and Human Services Secretary. Prior to RFK Jr.’s appointment as HHS Secretary, the CDC had historically been one of the world’s leading public health agencies. It provided guidance based on peer-reviewed science, expert epidemiology, and evidence-based policy. Health professionals, researchers, and governments around the world relied on it for disease surveillance, vaccine guidance, and response to major outbreaks. Under RFK Jr., all 17 members of the CDC’s independent vaccine advisory committee were removed and replaced with new appointees. Typically, the members are scientific experts who provide judgement based on evidence and facts, but the new appointees have been selected more for their political alignment and less for their scientific bona fides. CDC guidance and website content has been altered to reflect the views of RFK Jr. himself, and not the views of the scientific community. Views such as vaccines causing autism are now openly promoted on the CDC website and were broadcast without any vetting by career CDC scientists. Major medical associations and scientists continue to endorse long-standing evidence-based findings like the effects of vaccines, despite the CDC losing credibility under the leadership of RFK Jr.

Public health policy should be actively prevented from being politicized. Career scientists and public health experts should drive recommendations while political appointees simply set priorities and budgets. Political appointees should not be the driving force in scientific recommendations. Elected officials should pose the questions and allow the experts to provide the answers that are founded in peer-reviewed and evidence-based findings. There should be advisory committees made up of credentialed experts, not party loyalists. Public health guidance should not swing in different directions based on what political party is in the White House. At its core, it should be focused on maintaining public trust by being transparent and accountable.

How should Congress regulate artificial intelligence, if at all?

Artificial intelligence is here and it is here to stay. That means that Congress is already behind schedule on developing legislation that provides a framework for how AI can be used in the United States. Ideally, legislation is crafted that addresses specific sectors as a broad AI framework applying blanket laws would not be appropriate. I think Congress should consult with experts from every field to inform how they develop laws that will address sectors such as healthcare, transportation, finance, energy, criminal justice and surveillance, and, very importantly, national security. The laws should be focused on transparency and accountability, especially with corporations, instead of content control. Additionally, as AI is rapidly changing and adapting, regular Congressional review would be necessary to keep up with effective AI regulation.

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

I think a House vote for impeachment would be a symbolic gesture at best, even if the Democrats win the House back in the midterms. There is a very low chance that the Republican controlled Senate would convict President Trump since party loyalty and loyalty to Trump have eroded the institutional loyalty. Impeachment could also provide a renewed energy to Trump’s base as they would likely view it as political retribution for the actions the Trump administration has already done in his second term. Moving above the politics and actions of the Trump administration is required if we want to pull out of this as a stronger and capable of reshaping our government into something that people trust.

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

Oversight committees should prioritize reviewing Executive branch ethics and the abuse and overreach of power. The use of public office for personal or political gain has been running rampant. There has been overlooked conflicts of interest involving senior officials and donors as well. I would like to see oversight committees look at election administration and the federal government’s role in election security and voter access. Specifically, the attempts to undermine certification or election outcomes as well as the misuse of emergency powers or federal law enforcement around elections.

Congress needs to deep dive immigration and border patrol implementation. Currently, the United States has an outdated and inefficient immigration system. We need a comprehensive reform of the immigration system that provides clear, user-friendly instructions to people filing the various applications. Filing applications using the mail and black ink is incredibly ineffective and leads to massive administrative burden, we need to go digital. The politicization and weaponization of the Department of Justice needs to be addressed to prevent this kind of misuse in the future.

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

There are several areas that I agree on with Republicans. I firmly believe in the need for police and law enforcement, but I also believe in accountability measures. Any functioning democracy has a police force, as well the ability to enforce immigration and customs. Public safety and law enforcement is incredibly important to me and I think that reform within existing systems is more effective than wholly dismantling them. For example, I don’t believe in abolishing ICE because something worse will likely replace it. Instead, we should push for a complete reform of ICE and revert that agency back to its core purpose. That means de-militarization of ICE and greatly reducing their funding. ICE agents do not need to carry assault rifles, they do not need to wear bulletproof vests and plate carriers, and they certainly should not be wearing masks and tactical helmets.

Maintaining a strong military and defense readiness is another area I agree on with Republicans. I fully support US NATO membership and maintaining our longstanding alliances, as well as participating in joint counterterrorism and intelligence capabilities. Additionally, I support fiscal responsibility and appropriately managing deficit concerns, like Republicans. Transparency to the American people is critical and I would support tax increases or spending cuts to manage deficits. When it comes to the economy, I support incentives for investment rather than mandates where possible. I agree with Republicans in fostering positive environments for small businesses and entrepreneurs.

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

No, private equity and hedge funds have been playing a very negative role in the housing market. Frequently, commercial buyers outbid families with cash offers, replace what could be entry-level homes with rental properties, and lead to a small number of commercial firms gaining outsized market power. I don’t believe in an outright ban because private capital does add to the overall housing supply and institutional owners can professionalize property management. Rentals are very beneficial for younger people who are more prone to move around than families. I think we should cap the number of homes, especially single-family homes, by ZIP code or metro area that can be owned by large investment companies. Instead of a ban, we could use tax policy to adjust the behavior of large-scale investors. Some examples include applying higher property taxes on companies with a large portfolio of single-family rentals or introducing more incentives for selling homes to owner-occupants.

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

I oppose the expansion of work requirements. Expanding the work requirements risks greater food insecurity for an already vulnerable group. The new age group is 18-64, up from 18-54, and requires recipients to meet 80 hours or work, training, or volunteering per month. Older people will likely have a much harder time than younger people. I support expanding work requirements as long as work incentives are built into changes. For example, job training, transportation support, and childcare are a few services that could be integrated into SNAP employment and training programs.

Previous exemptions that protected veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and young adults who aged out of foster care have been removed, and all these groups must now comply with the work rules. These exemptions should not have been removed without, at a minimum, a gradual phase-in and effective case management. Disabled veterans, those struggling with homelessness, and kids who aged out of foster care should be very carefully monitored to ensure food security with these groups.

Finally, parents and caregivers are only exempt if they have a child under 14, a change from 18, which greatly tightens eligibility for many families. I would argue that expanding work requirements does not significantly increase employment but will likely reduce participation and benefit receipt, primarily among struggling families. I disagree with these planned implementations because they will increase administrative burden, especially with the added reporting requirements that can, in itself, act as a barrier.

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

I don’t have any specific donors. All of the money I have raised has some from grassroots fundraising and has been a mixture of supportive family and friends, as well as supporters from both inside and outside the district.

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

The reality of this is that if farmers need repeated bailouts, our trade policy is broken. First and foremost, I would work to repeal all the tariffs that the Trump administration unilaterally applied without any Congressional consultation or approval. Congress has the power to repeal all of them, but if the current members are refusing to act then it is time to replace the current members with those who will fight for Americans. Predictable trade rules are needed to help farmers, so they have a better understanding of how to make money from markets without having to rely on government bailouts. Sudden tariffs trigger retaliation and typically agriculture is the first sector to be targeted. I would avoid unilateral tariffs and instead apply multilateral pressure with coordination with allies. Finally, I would work with fellow members to shift the U.S. from tariffs to targeted trade enforcement. This would require coordination with allies to address unfair practices.