Laurie Ryan
RepublicanQ1 Data centers are a controversial part of America’s growing AI industry, supporting cutting-edge innovation and potential job creation, but raising issues of resource use and utility costs. New York now has a moratorium on data center construction. At the same time, state tax law grants tax exemptions to equipment and services used by data centers, which some proposed legislation would repeal. What do you see as the right balance of costs and benefits for new data center construction in New York, and how would your policies accomplish that balance?
I support responsible data center development in New York, but taxpayers, homeowners, and small businesses should not be forced to subsidize the infrastructure costs created by large private facilities.
Data centers can bring significant private investment, construction activity, technology investment, and high-skill jobs. At the same time, they can place substantial demands on electricity, water, and local infrastructure. New York needs a balanced approach that recognizes both realities.
I would support clear, predictable standards for new facilities rather than indefinite moratoriums or constantly changing regulations. Projects should be evaluated based on their actual impacts, including electricity and water use, and companies should be responsible for the incremental infrastructure costs they create rather than shifting those costs to ordinary ratepayers.
I also support local communities having a meaningful voice through zoning and permitting, along with appropriate protections for neighboring properties and natural resources.
Tax incentives should be transparent, measurable, and tied to demonstrated public benefits such as investment, jobs, and infrastructure improvements. If taxpayers provide an incentive, New Yorkers should receive a clear return.
New York should be open for business, but businesses should pay their fair share of the costs they create.
KEYWORDS: Growth, Accountability, Local Control Innovation Without Taxpayer Burden Jobs, Investment, Fiscal Responsibility Pro-Growth, Pro-Taxpayer, Pro-Community
Q2 New York currently generates about 47% of its energy from low carbon sources including nuclear, hydropower, and wind and solar, with the remainder coming from combustion sources (natural gas, oil, biofuel, and solid waste). While New York committed to shifting to low-carbon energy sources and emissions reductions in passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), Governor Hochul recently moved to delay implementation of several components of the state’s climate law to December 31, 2028. As concerns about energy costs, reliability, and emissions grow, what energy sources would you prioritize, under what timeline, and what evidence would guide that decision?
New York should pursue cleaner energy while protecting affordability, reliability, and consumer choice. I support slowing the implementation of policies that would force New Yorkers toward an all-electric system before our electric grid and energy infrastructure are ready.
I would prioritize a diverse energy portfolio that includes nuclear, natural gas, hydropower, and renewables such as wind and solar. Reliable, dispatchable sources are essential while we continue developing renewable generation, energy storage, and transmission infrastructure.
I support a phased, evidence-based approach rather than arbitrary deadlines. Before requiring additional electrification, New York should demonstrate that adequate generation and transmission capacity exists and that the transition will not significantly increase utility costs or threaten grid reliability.
Energy policy should be guided by measurable evidence, including electricity prices, grid reliability, projected demand, available generation, emissions reductions, and the costs imposed on families and businesses.
New York can reduce emissions and invest in cleaner technologies without eliminating consumer choice or forcing residents and businesses into one energy source. Our priority should be a reliable, affordable, and diverse energy system that meets New Yorkers’ needs while technology and infrastructure continue to develop.
KEYWORDS: Reliability Before Mandates, Affordable, Reliable Energy, Energy Choice, Grid Reliability, Practical, Evidence-Based Transition
Q3 Young adults say that social media is their top source of science information, but acknowledge that it is less trustworthy compared to other sources. In addition, the widespread usage of social media and other sources of scientific information has resulted in the spread of misinformation that has spurred public education policies to curb it, such as a NYC vaccine misinformation legislation. What role should public education play in combatting misinformation and disseminating trustworthy, up to date scientific information to students and their families?
Public education should focus on teaching students how to evaluate scientific information, recognize misinformation, and distinguish credible evidence from opinion or speculation. Schools should provide accurate, current scientific information from reputable sources while encouraging students to ask questions and think critically.
Teachers should present established scientific evidence honestly and explain how scientific conclusions are reached, including appropriate discussion of uncertainty and evolving research. At the same time, teachers should remain objective and should not use the classroom to promote personal, political, or ideological beliefs. Students should be exposed to credible evidence and encouraged to form their own informed conclusions.
Parents should remain involved in their children’s education, and schools should prioritize transparency and credible sources rather than political messaging. I do not believe government should become the arbiter of what information families are permitted to access or believe.
The best defense against misinformation is an educated public capable of evaluating competing claims. New York should invest in science and media literacy and critical-thinking skills so students and families can make informed decisions for themselves.
KEYWORDS: Science Literacy Critical Thinking Teacher Objectivity Parent Involvement
Q4 Pesticides are widely used in food production to help manage pests and support crop yields, but ongoing debates over their safety have raised questions about their long-term use and led to proposals to restrict certain pesticides. What data and evidence will you use to weigh the role of these products in food security against safety concerns when shaping policy on their use in New York agriculture?
New York’s pesticide policies should be guided by sound science, reliable data, and the practical realities facing farmers. Pesticides play an important role in protecting crops, maintaining yields, controlling invasive pests, and keeping food affordable, but legitimate concerns about human health and environmental impacts must also be taken seriously.
When considering restrictions, I would look at peer-reviewed research, EPA and New York Department of Environmental Conservation safety assessments, monitoring data on residues and environmental impacts, and evidence regarding risks to farm workers and surrounding communities. I would also consider whether effective alternatives are actually available, affordable, and capable of maintaining crop yields.
Policy should distinguish between pesticides based on their demonstrated risks rather than treating all products the same. Where evidence identifies a significant risk, reasonable restrictions or mitigation measures should be considered. Where evidence supports safe use, farmers should not face unnecessary restrictions that could reduce production or increase food costs.
Farmers should also have a voice in the process. New York should encourage integrated pest management and safer alternatives where practical, while preserving farmers’ ability to protect their crops and livelihoods.
The goal should be safe food, productive farms, and evidence-based regulation—not regulation based on fear or politics.
KEYWORDS: Science-Based Regulation, Farmers’ Choice, Food Security, Safety & Accountability
Q5 New York has the second largest international student population of any U.S. state, the majority of which study in STEM fields. The federal government is pursuing largescale changes to student visa approval, including increased visa denials, revoking existing visas, restricting travel from certain countries, and decreasing student visa durations. How, if at all, should New York respond to federal visa changes affecting international STEM students and researchers, and the resulting projected changes in the scientific workforce supply?
New York should continue competing for the best students, researchers, and scientific talent from around the world, while respecting federal authority over immigration and student visas. International students who are legally admitted and academically qualified make valuable contributions to New York’s universities, research institutions, and economy, particularly in STEM fields.
I would support New York universities and employers providing clear information and assistance to students and researchers navigating federal visa requirements, while avoiding policies that circumvent federal immigration law.
Admissions, scholarships, research opportunities, and hiring should be based on merit, qualifications, and demonstrated ability—not race, ethnicity, nationality, or political considerations. New York should ensure that efforts to increase diversity do not come at the expense of academic standards or equal treatment.
At the same time, we should strengthen opportunities for talented New Yorkers to pursue STEM education and careers, including scholarships, apprenticeships, and partnerships between schools, colleges, and employers.
The goal should be simple: attract the best talent, maintain high standards, follow the law, and develop more homegrown STEM talent. New York should remain competitive without compromising merit, fairness, or the integrity of our immigration system.
KEYWORDS: Merit-Based Opportunity, Legal Immigration, Academic Excellence, Homegrown STEM Talent
Q6 Extreme weather events are increasingly impacting farmland and food supplies across NY, including up to 30 million dollars in damages to farmer livelihoods. This has prompted the USDA to designate 30 counties in New York as Natural Disaster Areas. What policies, if any, would you support to help farmers adapt to and prepare for increasingly erratic weather?
New York should help farmers prepare for increasingly unpredictable weather without adding unnecessary regulations or costs to already challenging operations. Farmers need practical tools and flexibility, not one-size-fits-all mandates.
I would support expanding access to crop insurance, disaster assistance, and low-interest financing for improvements that make farms more resilient, such as drainage systems, irrigation, water storage, wind protection, and improved soil management. The state should also work with the federal government to ensure disaster assistance reaches farmers quickly when extreme weather causes significant losses.
New York should invest in agricultural research and extension services to help farmers identify crops, planting practices, and technologies that can better withstand changing weather conditions. Decisions should be guided by measurable data and the experience of farmers who understand their land and local conditions.
I would also support stronger partnerships among farmers, universities, and agricultural organizations to develop practical solutions while preserving farmers’ freedom to choose what works for their operations.
Our goal should be straightforward: help New York farmers remain productive, profitable, and resilient while protecting food security and respecting the independence of the people who grow our food.
KEYWORDS: Farmer Choice, Resilient Agriculture, Practical Solutions, Food Security
Q7 Law enforcement agencies across New York have contracted with Flock to install Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras as a public safety tool. The technology is receiving pushback over concerns over privacy and data sharing, resulting in city councilors in Syracuse voting to remove Flock cameras. What are your views on accessibility and utilization of ALPR data by local and federal law enforcement, and what legislation, if any, would you propose governing how ALPR data is collected, stored, shared and retained?
ALPR technology can be a valuable law enforcement tool for solving crimes and locating stolen vehicles, missing persons, and suspects. However, the ability to collect location data on large numbers of people who are not suspected of wrongdoing requires appropriate safeguards.
I would support legislation requiring clear limits on how ALPR data is collected, accessed, stored, and shared. Data should be collected for legitimate public-safety purposes, with access limited to authorized law enforcement personnel and documented investigative needs. Retention periods should be limited, with information unrelated to an active investigation deleted after a reasonable period.
Sharing ALPR data with other agencies, including federal agencies, should require clear legal authority and accountability. Agencies should maintain access logs and conduct regular audits to ensure the system is being used appropriately. There should also be penalties for unauthorized access or misuse.
At the same time, I would not support eliminating a technology simply because it can be misused. The goal should be to preserve its legitimate public-safety benefits while protecting law-abiding New Yorkers from unnecessary government surveillance.
Public safety and privacy should not be mutually exclusive.
KEYWORDS: Public Safety & Privacy, Responsible Data Use, Limited Retention, Accountability
Q8 Smoke from Canadian wildfires in recent summers has pushed New York air quality to unhealthy levels. The long-term consequences, if any, of these wildfires are unknown: Short-term data show a rise in asthma-related emergency department visits during smoke events, though some studies suggest the increase is comparable to that seen on high-pollen days. With extreme wildfire seasons projected to become more frequent as global temperatures rise, what measures, if any, do you think New York should invest in to prepare for future smoke events?
New York should take practical steps to prepare for wildfire smoke events and protect public health, particularly for children, seniors, and people with respiratory conditions. Because the long-term health impacts of repeated smoke exposure are still being studied, our policies should be guided by the best available evidence and updated as the science develops.
I would support strengthening air-quality monitoring and providing timely, easy-to-understand alerts when smoke creates unhealthy conditions. Schools, nursing homes, hospitals, and other public facilities should have plans for maintaining safe indoor air, including appropriate filtration and clean-air spaces when necessary.
The state should also make reliable air-quality information widely available so families and employers can make informed decisions about outdoor activities and work during severe smoke events.
New York should coordinate with local governments and Canadian and federal authorities to improve forecasting and emergency communication during major wildfire events.
Rather than imposing broad new regulations based on uncertain projections, I would prioritize practical preparedness, targeted investments, and measurable outcomes. As additional evidence becomes available, New York should adjust its policies accordingly.
Prepare for the risk, protect public health, and follow the evidence.
KEYWORDS: Practical Preparedness, Public Health Protection, Evidence-Based Policy, Clear Emergency Alerts
Q9 New York is the second largest recipient of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Proposed federal budgets would significantly reduce NIH funds going to New York hospitals, universities, and research institutions. Where do you stand on the proposed changes to NIH funding levels, and what steps, if any, would you take to address their potential effect on New York’s research sector?
NIH-funded research has produced important medical and scientific advances, and New York has a significant research sector that benefits from federal investment. In FY2025, New York received approximately $2.13 billion in NIH awards. The NIH has a $47.5 billion budget for FY2026, a 1% increase from FY2025. However, I believe every federal research dollar should be subject to transparency, accountability, and rigorous scientific standards.
I would be concerned about significant funding reductions that eliminate promising research, disrupt ongoing studies, or cause talented researchers and institutions to leave New York. At the same time, I support reviewing NIH spending, reducing unnecessary administrative costs, and ensuring funding is directed toward research with strong scientific merit and measurable public benefit.
New York should work with our congressional delegation, universities, hospitals, and research institutions to understand the impact of federal changes and advocate for competitive funding based on scientific quality rather than political considerations. We should also encourage more private-sector investment so our research institutions are not overly dependent on federal funding.
Fund good science, demand accountability, and protect research that delivers measurable public benefit.
KEYWORDS: NIH funding should be earned on scientific merit, independently reviewed, transparent, and subject to strong oversight