Candidate Q&A
Why are you running?
I am running for Congress because I believe our country needs principled, experienced leaders who understand how government decisions affect real communities—not just Washington talking points. I’ve spent my career solving complex problems, managing large organizations, and delivering results, and I’ve spent years serving my neighbors at the local level as Mayor of Elburn. That combination of real-world experience and hands-on public service is badly needed in Congress today. My decision to run was reinforced when I was asked by the Congressional Republican Organization to step forward and consider this race. I took that request seriously because I don’t see public service as a career move, but as a responsibility. When leaders you respect tell you the moment matters and your skills are needed, you listen. As mayor, I’ve worked across political differences to balance budgets, invest in infrastructure, support public safety, and plan responsibly for growth—all while keeping taxes in check. Those same principles guide me now: fiscal discipline, constitutional accountability, public safety, and respect for individual liberty. Washington too often ignores the practical consequences of its decisions, passing unfunded mandates and regulations that hurt families, small businesses, and local governments. I’m running for Congress to bring common sense back to federal policymaking, to defend constitutional rights, and to restore trust in government by focusing on results rather than rhetoric. I believe Congress should work for the people—not the other way around—and I’m ready to do the work required to make that happen.
What do you think is the most pressing issue facing your constituents and how do you plan on addressing it?
The most pressing issue facing my constituents is the rising cost of living, driven by inflation, high energy prices, housing costs, and federal policies that have made everyday necessities less affordable for working families and seniors. People are doing everything right—working hard, budgeting carefully—and still finding it harder to get ahead. That erodes trust not only in the economy, but in government itself. Addressing this starts with fiscal responsibility. Washington’s unchecked spending fuels inflation and pushes costs onto families through higher prices and interest rates. I will support responsible budgeting, demand accountability for every taxpayer dollar, and work to rein in waste, fraud, and abuse across federal programs. Second, we must lower energy costs, because energy prices affect everything—from groceries to manufacturing to home heating. I support an all-of-the-above energy strategy that includes domestic oil and gas production, nuclear power, and next-generation technologies. Energy independence is both an economic and national-security issue. Third, we need policies that expand housing supply and affordability by reducing unnecessary federal regulations that drive up construction costs and limit local flexibility. Local communities—not Washington—are best positioned to plan smart growth. Finally, economic relief must be paired with job creation and workforce development, not dependency. That means supporting small businesses, reducing regulatory burdens, and ensuring education and training programs align with real labor-market needs. My approach is grounded in practical experience at the local level: balancing budgets, managing infrastructure, and making tough decisions with limited resources. I will bring that same discipline to Congress—focused on results, affordability, and restoring opportunity for the people I represent.
What is one unique challenge your district faces and how do you plan to address it?
One unique challenge facing my district is the disconnect between rapid suburban growth and federal policies that fail to account for its real-world impacts. Our communities sit at the crossroads of growth, agriculture, manufacturing, and commuter economies. We are not urban cores, and we are not rural outposts—but Washington too often treats us as if we are one or the other. That mismatch leads to unfunded mandates, infrastructure strain, and policies that overlook how families here actually live and work. As mayor, I have seen firsthand how population growth stresses roads, water systems, schools, and public safety—often without corresponding federal support or flexibility. Federal programs are frequently designed with rigid, one-size-fits-all rules that work poorly for fast-growing suburban districts like ours. Local governments are then left to fill the gap, putting pressure on property taxpayers. My plan is to advocate for federal policies that respect local control while providing targeted support. That means pushing back on unfunded mandates, reforming grant programs so suburban communities can compete fairly, and ensuring infrastructure dollars are focused on capacity, reliability, and long-term planning—not political priorities. I will also work to ensure that transportation, housing, and workforce policies reflect the realities of commuter districts, where residents depend on reliable roads, regional transit, and nearby job centers. Economic growth should not come at the cost of affordability or quality of life. This challenge requires practical leadership, not ideology. I will bring my experience balancing growth and responsibility at the local level to Congress, making sure our district’s unique needs are understood, respected, and addressed.
What do you think federal immigration reform should look like?
Federal immigration reform must be lawful, humane, and enforceable, and it must begin with restoring the rule of law at the border. A nation that cannot control who enters and remains within its borders cannot fairly administer immigration, public safety, or social services. Compassion and enforcement are not opposites—they are inseparable. First, the federal government must secure the border through effective physical barriers where appropriate, modern surveillance technology, and adequate staffing for Border Patrol and immigration courts. Enforcement must be consistent, not episodic or political, and asylum laws must be reformed to prevent abuse while preserving protection for those with legitimate claims. Second, immigration reform must prioritize a legal, merit-based system that meets the economic needs of the country. That includes streamlining legal pathways for high-demand skills, agriculture, healthcare, and seasonal labor, while enforcing visa overstay laws—which account for a significant portion of illegal immigration. Third, federal law must be applied uniformly. Sanctuary policies that prevent cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities undermine public safety and erode trust. At the same time, reform should protect due process and human dignity, particularly for families and children. Finally, Congress must address the reality that long-term failure has created. Any solutions must be narrow, lawful, and conditioned on enforcement—not blanket amnesty. Accountability matters, and future violations must not be incentivized. Immigration reform should serve the national interest, respect the law, and treat people with fairness. I will support reforms that restore control, strengthen legal immigration, and ensure policies are enforced consistently—because a system that works must be trusted by the people it serves.
How should Congress address the rising costs of health care?
Rising health care costs are one of the biggest pressures on families, employers, and seniors, and Congress must focus on affordability, access, and accountability, not one-size-fits-all federal control. The goal should be lower costs and better outcomes—not simply more spending. First, Congress must increase price transparency so patients know the true cost of care before they receive it. When consumers can compare prices and outcomes, competition increases and costs come down. Hospitals, insurers, and pharmaceutical benefit managers should all be subject to clear, enforceable transparency rules. Second, we need to strengthen market-based competition by allowing greater choice across state lines, encouraging innovative care models, and reducing regulatory barriers that drive up administrative costs. Small businesses and individuals should have more options, not fewer. Third, Congress should tackle the cost drivers within federal programs by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid while protecting benefits for seniors and the truly vulnerable. Smart oversight—not blunt cuts—can save money and improve care. Fourth, we must expand access to preventive and primary care, including telehealth, especially in suburban and rural communities. Preventing chronic disease and managing conditions early is far less expensive than treating emergencies later. Finally, Congress must address prescription drug costs by promoting competition, accelerating approval of generics and biosimilars, and increasing accountability across the drug supply chain—without stifling innovation. Health care reform should be practical and patient-centered. I will focus on solutions that reduce costs, preserve choice, and improve outcomes—because families deserve quality care they can afford without government micromanagement.
What approach would you take on tax policy and what is your top priority?
My approach to tax policy is grounded in fairness, simplicity, and economic growth, with the clear understanding that families and small businesses are already carrying too much of the federal burden. The tax code should reward work, savings, and investment—not punish them—and it should be predictable so people can plan for the future. My top priority is relief for working families and small businesses by preventing tax increases and pushing for a simpler, more transparent tax system. Congress should make permanent the middle-class tax relief provisions that are scheduled to expire and resist policies that raise taxes indirectly through hidden fees, inflationary spending, or regulatory costs passed on to consumers. I also support reducing complexity in the tax code, which currently favors those who can afford teams of accountants and lawyers. Simplification—through fewer deductions, clearer rules, and broader bases—levels the playing field and improves compliance while lowering administrative costs. At the same time, tax policy must be paired with serious spending discipline. Raising taxes without addressing waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs simply feeds inefficiency. I will support strong oversight, program audits, and budget reforms that ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly before asking families for more. Finally, tax policy should encourage domestic investment and job creation by keeping American businesses competitive globally. That means opposing punitive taxes that drive jobs overseas and supporting policies that strengthen domestic manufacturing and innovation. A fair tax system should be pro-growth, understandable, and accountable. My focus in Congress will be protecting taxpayers, restoring fiscal discipline, and ensuring the federal government lives within its means—just like families do.
Is the House currently using its oversight powers in the way it should be? What areas of government need more or less oversight?
The House of Representatives is not consistently using its oversight powers the way it should. Congressional oversight is a core constitutional responsibility, not a political weapon, and too often it is exercised selectively—aggressive when it scores partisan points and absent when accountability is inconvenient. That approach undermines public trust and weakens the institution. Effective oversight should be fact-driven, disciplined, and focused on outcomes, not headlines. Hearings should lead to reforms, not just sound bites. Congress must be willing to follow the facts wherever they lead, regardless of which party controls the executive branch. Several areas of government need stronger oversight. Border security and immigration enforcement demand close scrutiny, particularly how existing laws are implemented and why they are not consistently enforced. Federal spending and debt also require far more oversight, including how emergency authorities and discretionary programs are used long after their original purpose has passed. Emerging technologies—especially artificial intelligence and data use within federal agencies—need careful oversight to protect civil liberties, privacy, and due process. At the same time, Congress should apply less micromanagement in areas better handled by states and local governments, such as routine education and land-use decisions. Oversight should ensure federal dollars are used lawfully and effectively, not dictate local policy choices. My approach would be to restore oversight as a serious governing function: setting clear objectives, demanding transparency, measuring results, and holding agencies accountable for failures. Done correctly, oversight strengthens good government, protects taxpayers, and reinforces the constitutional balance of powers.
What is the most pressing foreign policy issue facing the country and what role should the House play in dealing with it?
The most pressing foreign policy issue facing the United States is the growing challenge from authoritarian regimes that are testing American resolve across multiple fronts, particularly China, Russia, and Iran. This is not a single conflict, but a sustained effort to undermine U.S. economic strength, national security, and global stability. Weak or inconsistent responses invite further aggression and put both our allies and American interests at risk. The House of Representatives has a critical role in ensuring U.S. foreign policy is strategic, accountable, and aligned with national interests. First, the House must exercise rigorous oversight of military aid, foreign assistance, and security commitments to ensure taxpayer dollars are used effectively and with clear objectives. Support for allies must be paired with transparency, defined goals, and measurable outcomes. Second, the House plays a central role in funding decisions. Congress must prioritize a strong national defense, resilient supply chains, and investments that reduce dependence on adversarial nations—especially in critical technologies, energy, and manufacturing. Economic security is national security, and the House must treat it as such. Third, the House should assert its constitutional authority through debate, authorization, and accountability—not by deferring indefinitely to the executive branch. Major commitments, prolonged military involvement, and sanctions regimes deserve congressional scrutiny and, when appropriate, authorization. Finally, the House must support a foreign policy that is realistic and principled: strong deterrence, credible diplomacy, and unwavering support for allies—while avoiding open-ended conflicts without clear end states. America’s strength abroad depends on seriousness at home. The House must help restore that seriousness by governing responsibly, overseeing effectively, and ensuring U.S. foreign policy serves the American people.
How do you view AI and the role the government should play in its regulation?
I view artificial intelligence as a powerful tool that can drive economic growth, improve public services, and strengthen national competitiveness—but only if it is developed and used responsibly. Having worked professionally as an AI Solution Architect and Delivery Lead, I’ve seen both the promise of AI and the real risks that come from poorly designed systems, unclear accountability, and rushed deployment. The government’s role should be to set clear guardrails, not pick winners or stifle innovation. Regulation should focus on outcomes—protecting privacy, civil liberties, transparency, and due process—rather than prescribing specific technologies that will quickly become outdated. AI systems used by the federal government must meet high standards for explainability, data integrity, and security, especially when they affect benefits, law enforcement, or individual rights. Congress should also prioritize oversight of how AI is procured and used within federal agencies. Too often, technology failures stem from poor governance rather than bad technology. Requirements around data quality, bias testing, human-in-the-loop decision making, and auditability are essential and achievable without crushing innovation. At the same time, the U.S. must remain globally competitive. Overregulation would push innovation overseas and weaken our position relative to adversaries who do not share our values. A risk-based approach—lighter rules for low-risk applications and stricter scrutiny for high-impact uses—is the right balance. AI policy should be informed by practitioners, not just theorists. I will bring real-world delivery experience to Congress to ensure AI regulation is practical, enforceable, and rooted in protecting people while enabling innovation.
How would you describe the current state of your party and what changes or new approaches would you like to see your party adopt?
I would describe the current state of my party as diverse, energized, and at a crossroads. Republicans are united in their concern about the direction of the country, but we are often divided on strategy, messaging, and leadership. That division can weaken our effectiveness and distract from the policies voters care about most. One area where the party must improve is candidate vetting. Winning elections requires credible, prepared candidates who can withstand scrutiny and govern effectively. Stronger vetting—focused on background, temperament, readiness, and message discipline—helps avoid costly mistakes and ensures voters are offered serious choices, not surprises. Second, the party should rethink how it supports candidates during primaries. Healthy competition is good, but the process should emphasize fairness, transparency, and early clarity. When candidates meet clear standards, the party should not be afraid to provide organizational support, data access, and guidance rather than standing on the sidelines until after divisive contests weaken the eventual nominee. Finally, the party needs stronger, more disciplined leadership at both the national and state levels. Leadership should set clear priorities, enforce standards, and keep the focus on governing—not internal drama. Voters are looking for competence, seriousness, and results. Going forward, I would like to see a more professional, solutions-oriented approach—one that welcomes grassroots energy while insisting on accountability and preparedness. A party that is principled, well-led, and focused on winning and governing can earn back trust and build durable majorities.