Candidate Q&A
Why are you running?
I’m running because I’ve lived what too many working families are going through right now. I’ve worked long shifts, organized alongside workers for fair treatment, and built a career in public health protecting people’s health and safety on the job. I’ve also raised two sons while navigating the same affordability pressures that families across our district feel every day. I know what it means to be stretched thin and to feel like the system isn’t built with you in mind. Too often, decisions in Washington are shaped by money, inertia, and political calculation instead of real-life experience. I’m not a career politician. I’m a Certified Industrial Hygienist and environmental health professional who believes government should solve problems, not manage decline. I’m running to fight for a four-day workweek so working people can get their time back, for climate action that creates good union jobs and leaves our kids a livable planet, and for structural reforms that make our democracy work for the many, not the powerful few. We deserve leadership rooted in real work, real accountability, and real results. I’m running to help build that.
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 affordability, and the deeper problem beneath it: working people are losing time, stability, and bargaining power while costs keep rising. Housing, healthcare, childcare, groceries, energy, and transportation are all more expensive, yet wages have not kept pace with productivity or corporate profits. Families are working harder but falling behind. That is not accidental, it is the result of policy choices that weakened labor protections, concentrated corporate power, and prioritized short-term profits over long-term stability. To address this, we need structural solutions. First, rebuild worker bargaining power by strengthening unions and passing labor reforms that prevent wage theft, misclassification, and retaliation. Second, advance a 32-hour, four-day workweek so productivity gains translate into higher effective pay and more time for families. Third, invest in climate-resilient infrastructure and domestic manufacturing that create good union jobs while lowering long-term energy and disaster costs. Finally, protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, because retirement security is a core affordability issue. Affordability is not just about prices. It is about power, time, and stability. My plan addresses all three.
What is one unique challenge your district faces and how do you plan to address it?
One unique challenge in the 9th District is that we are both deeply urban and significantly suburban, with very different cost pressures and infrastructure needs across the district. In Chicago neighborhoods, families face rising rents, aging buildings, transit reliability concerns, and climate-related flooding. In our suburban communities, residents are dealing with property tax strain, transportation access, aging infrastructure, and economic transitions as traditional commercial corridors evolve. What ties these communities together is resilience. Our district sits along Lake Michigan and faces increasing extreme weather, flooding, and infrastructure stress. Climate change is not abstract here; it shows up in flooded basements, overwhelmed storm systems, and rising utility costs. My plan is to prioritize federal investment in storm-resilient infrastructure, modernized transit, grid reliability, and energy-efficient building retrofits. These investments lower long-term costs for families while creating high-quality union jobs locally. We also need housing and transit policy that connects people to jobs affordably, whether they live in Rogers Park, Skokie, or Crystal Lake. The strength of IL-9 is its diversity. The challenge is ensuring federal policy reflects and supports that complexity. I intend to do exactly that.
What do you think federal immigration reform should look like?
Federal immigration reform should begin with a simple truth: many of the people arriving at our border are not chasing opportunity alone; they are fleeing violence, instability, and desperation. In many cases, this is a refugee crisis as much as an immigration one. When families arrive seeking safety, we should respond with both order and compassion. Our laws matter, but so does our humanity. We need a functioning asylum system that processes claims quickly and fairly, so people are not left in limbo for years. We need a legal pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and long-term residents who are already contributing to our communities. And we must hold employers accountable so immigration status cannot be used to exploit workers or drive down wages. Border management and moral responsibility are not opposites. We can secure our border while upholding due process and human dignity. “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
How should Congress address the rising costs of health care?
Rising health care costs are not just a medical issue, they are an affordability and structural problem. Families are paying more while outcomes often lag behind other developed countries. That tells us the system is misaligned. As a public health professional, I believe we must focus on cost drivers. First, we should allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices broadly and cap out-of-pocket costs. No one should ration insulin or skip treatment because of price. Second, we need a strong public option to increase competition in insurance markets, particularly in areas with limited provider choice. I support Medicare for All in principle, but I believe expanding coverage through practical, achievable reforms can prove government can run a plan effectively while increasing access. Third, we must invest upstream. Preventive care, mental health services, primary care access, and environmental health protections reduce long-term costs dramatically. Finally, we need greater price transparency and stronger antitrust enforcement to address hospital consolidation that drives up costs. Health care should prioritize outcomes and affordability, not shareholder returns. Congress must realign incentives so the system works for patients and families, not just corporations.
What approach would you take on tax policy and what is your top priority?
My approach to tax policy is grounded in fairness, stability, and long-term responsibility. Tax policy should reward work, strengthen families, and protect the programs people rely on. My top priority is protecting and expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable earnings. Right now, income above a certain threshold is not subject to Social Security payroll taxes. That means a CEO can stop contributing months into the year while a nurse or electrician pays in on every dollar they earn. Lifting the cap strengthens the program for generations without cutting benefits. At the same time, we should double the Child Tax Credit and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. When we temporarily expanded the Child Tax Credit, child poverty fell dramatically. It worked. We should make that progress permanent. To pay for these priorities, we should reverse portions of the 2017 tax cuts for high-income earners and ensure large corporations and multinational companies cannot avoid taxes through loopholes or profit shifting. A fair tax code protects Social Security, reduces inequality, supports working families, and restores fiscal balance. That is the direction we need to move.
Is the House currently using its oversight powers in the way it should be? What areas of government need more or less oversight?
No, the House has not fully used its oversight powers, especially when executive agencies stretch beyond clear legal boundaries. Oversight should protect civil liberties and ensure government acts within the law, not serve as a political cudgel. Immigration enforcement is a clear example. Many progressives in and outside Congress argue that ICE has grown too broad in scope, lacks accountability, and operates with minimal transparency, especially after recent deaths during enforcement operations. Some lawmakers are calling for the agency to be dismantled entirely, while others focus on transforming and reining it in through legislative guardrails. I believe Congress should review whether ICE’s functions can be reorganized under clear statutory authority with strong due process protections, independent oversight, and strict limits on warrantless arrests and aggressive tactics. Agencies that cannot operate within legal and humanitarian standards should be restructured or replaced. Effective oversight is not just investigation; it is ensuring accountability, preventing executive overreach, and restoring trust that government serves all of us, not just powerful interests.
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 challenge facing the United States is the rapid evolution of cyber warfare and AI-enabled conflict in an already unstable global environment. We are facing rising authoritarianism, intensified U.S.–China competition, growing militarization in the Arctic, ongoing war in Europe, and climate-driven instability. But beneath many of these issues lies a deeper vulnerability: digital infrastructure and emerging artificial intelligence systems are now central to national security. Cyberattacks can disrupt hospitals, energy grids, financial systems, and elections without a single shot being fired. AI is accelerating disinformation, autonomous weapons development, and strategic decision-making at speeds that outpace traditional governance frameworks. The House must play a central role in setting guardrails. Congress controls funding for cybersecurity infrastructure, research oversight, export controls on advanced AI systems, and coordination with allies. We must modernize cyber defense, strengthen public-private partnerships to protect critical infrastructure, and establish clear ethical and strategic boundaries for AI use in military and intelligence operations. The next major conflict may not begin with tanks crossing borders, but with code. Congress must act now to ensure innovation strengthens democratic resilience rather than undermines it.
How do you view AI and the role the government should play in its regulation?
I view AI as a transformative technology that can either expand human potential or deepen inequality, depending on how we govern it. AI is already reshaping health care, manufacturing, logistics, media, and national security. It can improve diagnostics, increase efficiency, and reduce dangerous work. But it also poses serious risks: job displacement without transition support, algorithmic bias, privacy erosion, disinformation, and autonomous weapons development. Government’s role is not to stifle innovation, but to set clear guardrails that protect the public while allowing responsible progress. First, we need transparency standards so high-impact AI systems can be audited for bias, safety, and security. Second, we need worker-centered policy: retraining investments, labor protections, and shared productivity gains so automation benefits working families rather than concentrating wealth. Third, we need strict limits on AI use in critical infrastructure, surveillance, and military applications. We should also coordinate internationally to prevent a regulatory race to the bottom. AI is a tool. The question is who it serves. With thoughtful oversight and public investment, it can strengthen democracy and opportunity. Without it, it risks amplifying instability and inequality.
How would you describe the current state of your party and what changes or new approaches would you like to see your party adopt?
The Democratic Party is at a crossroads. We have been strong at identifying injustice and casting the right votes. But too often, we have settled for messaging bills that signal virtue rather than legislation that restructures power. Voters do not need symbolic wins. They need results. For too long, parts of our party have focused on softening the sharpest edges of a broken system instead of fixing the system itself. We pass temporary patches, modest adjustments, or bills we know will not survive, then campaign on the effort. Meanwhile, working families continue to struggle with rising costs, stagnant wages, and corporate concentration. If we want to rebuild trust, we must deliver durable, structural change. That means rebuilding labor power, advancing a 32-hour workweek, lifting the Social Security cap, confronting corporate consolidation, and passing reforms that materially shift economic leverage toward workers. We also need internal reform. Primaries should not be financial arms races dominated by wealthy donors and institutional endorsements. If we truly want money out of politics, we have to stop treating fundraising totals as a proxy for merit. Democrats do not win by trimming around the edges. We win by improving people’s lives in ways they can feel. It is time to govern with urgency and courage, not just rhetoric.