Jeffery Hulum III

Artificial intelligence has extraordinary potential to improve medicine, scientific research, agriculture, education, national defense, manufacturing, accessibility, and economic productivity. America should remain a global leader in its responsible development. But technological capability should never become an excuse to abandon human responsibility. I support a risk-based approach to AI regulation that distinguishes between ordinary, low-risk applications and systems capable of significantly affecting a person’s health, employment, finances, education, privacy, civil rights, or access to government services. When AI is used to make consequential decisions about people’s lives, I believe transparency and accountability are essential. Individuals should know when automated systems materially influence important decisions about them, and meaningful human review should remain available where appropriate. I also support strong protections against AI-enabled fraud, malicious impersonation, cybercrime, exploitation, discriminatory outcomes, and other foreseeable harms. Developers of high-risk systems should take reasonable steps to evaluate security, accuracy, bias, and safety before those systems are widely deployed. At the same time, regulation should be carefully designed so that responsible researchers, entrepreneurs, universities, and small businesses are not prevented from innovating. I do not believe we must choose between technological leadership and protecting people. America should lead the world in artificial intelligence, and we should also lead the world in developing it responsibly.

I support a diversified, all-of-the-above energy strategy built around reliability, affordability, national security, environmental responsibility, and innovation. Natural gas currently plays an essential role in Mississippi’s electricity supply. Any responsible energy transition must recognize the importance of maintaining reliable power for families, hospitals, military installations, manufacturers, shipbuilders, small businesses, and other critical infrastructure. At the same time, I believe solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear, energy storage, and emerging technologies can play an increasingly important role in America’s long-term energy portfolio. Diversification can strengthen energy security, encourage innovation, create new industries, and reduce our vulnerability to disruptions or price volatility involving any single energy source. However, I do not believe energy policy should be driven by ideology. Each technology should be evaluated honestly based on reliability, cost, environmental impact, land and water use, infrastructure requirements, and benefits to the communities where projects are located. Our goal should be straightforward: keep energy reliable and affordable today while responsibly building the cleaner, stronger, more resilient energy system America will need tomorrow.

Data centers represent a significant economic and technological opportunity for Mississippi and the United States, but development on this scale also carries responsibilities that should not be ignored. These facilities can attract billions of dollars in private investment, support construction and technology jobs, expand infrastructure, strengthen America’s digital economy, and position Mississippi to participate in industries that will shape the future. I welcome those opportunities. At the same time, communities deserve clear answers about electricity demand, water consumption, environmental effects, infrastructure requirements, utility rates, permanent job creation, and who ultimately pays for the additional capacity these facilities require. My position is not anti-technology or anti-development. It is pro-responsibility. Mississippi families should not be expected to subsidize enormous corporate developments through higher utility bills, strained water resources, or infrastructure costs shifted onto local taxpayers. I support transparent environmental and infrastructure assessments, responsible water management, thoughtful grid planning, appropriate community involvement, and utility structures that ensure major industrial users bear a fair share of the costs created by their operations. I want Mississippi to compete for the industries of tomorrow. But economic development should improve the quality of life of the people who already call Mississippi home. Innovation and human wellbeing should advance together.

I believe protecting our agriculture, fisheries, and wildlife is both an economic responsibility and a commitment to future generations. In Mississippi, these resources are part of who we are. Farmers, fishermen, shrimpers, foresters, processors, small businesses, and coastal communities depend on healthy land and water for their livelihoods. Our policies should recognize that conservation and economic prosperity do not have to compete. I support a strong agricultural safety net, crop insurance, disaster assistance, agricultural research, access to affordable credit, and voluntary conservation programs that help producers improve soil health, reduce erosion, protect water quality, and preserve wildlife habitat. I also support sustained investment in fisheries science, coastal and wetland restoration, responsible fisheries management, and efforts to protect the long-term health of the Gulf of Mexico. I believe the people who work our farms, forests, rivers, and coastal waters should have a meaningful voice in the policies affecting them. Good conservation policy should be grounded in science, informed by local experience, and designed to preserve both our natural resources and the livelihoods that depend upon them. Our responsibility is to leave the next generation productive farmland, healthy fisheries, abundant wildlife, clean water, and an economy capable of sustaining the families who care for these resources.

Absolutely. If Mississippi wants to become a leader in science, technology, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, energy, aerospace, cybersecurity, and other emerging industries, that work must begin long before a student enters a four-year university. I support expanding high-quality STEM education in K–12 schools, strengthening science laboratories and classroom technology, investing in science and mathematics teachers, expanding career and technical education, and creating more opportunities for students to participate in hands-on research. Community colleges are particularly important. They provide an affordable pathway into skilled professions and can respond quickly to the workforce needs of local industries. I support stronger partnerships among community colleges, universities, employers, military installations, healthcare systems, manufacturers, research institutions, and federal agencies. I also want rural students to have access to the same quality of STEM opportunities available in larger communities. A child’s ZIP code should not determine whether that child has access to a laboratory, advanced mathematics, engineering, coding, or a pathway into a scientific career. Mississippi already has talented young people. Our responsibility is to make sure opportunity reaches them.

Yes. I believe elected officials have a responsibility to engage scientific expertise while also respecting the public’s right to ask questions. Trust cannot be demanded. It must be earned. Good science depends on evidence, transparency, testing, scrutiny, and a willingness to revise conclusions when better evidence becomes available. Good government should demonstrate those same qualities. As a member of Congress, I would seek input from scientists, physicians, engineers, researchers, educators, farmers, fishermen, industry professionals, and community stakeholders when considering policies involving science and technology. I also believe we need stronger communication between scientific institutions and the communities affected by scientific and technological decisions. Scientists should have opportunities to explain not only what the evidence shows, but also what remains uncertain. Likewise, elected officials should be willing to explain how scientific evidence influenced their decisions. I will never treat legitimate questions from the public as an inconvenience. Listening is part of leadership. When government is transparent, scientists communicate clearly, and citizens are respected enough to be included in the conversation, we create the conditions necessary for trust to grow.