Wilneida Negron
For All of UsQ1 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?
The question isn’t whether New York builds the infrastructure of the AI economy. It’s who pays for it and who shares in what it earns.
Right now the deal is lopsided. Data centers bring real construction work and real investment. But once a facility is running, it employs relatively few people. Meanwhile, families risk paying more on their utility bills for the grid upgrades these facilities need. Our sales tax exemption was written for the dial-up era, and it now subsidizes some of the richest companies in the world. When the profits are private and the costs are public, I call that an extraction economy. We can fix it without shutting the door on innovation.
I support the Governor’s moratorium as what it is: a one-year pause to set standards. It is not a ban. When it lifts, I’d build on four principles.
Pay your own way on power. If a facility makes the grid bigger, it pays for the upgrade, not the ratepayer. Michigan already requires data centers to pay higher rates in exchange for its tax break. Its law passed with bipartisan support. That is a working model.
Replace blanket exemptions with earned incentives. Tax relief should be tied to permanent jobs, prevailing wages, and local hiring. It should come with clawbacks if those promises aren’t kept. Today it is handed out automatically.
Disclose energy and water use. Communities can’t negotiate a fair deal without facts. Every large facility should report what it consumes.
Put communities and workers at the table. Hosting communities should get binding benefit agreements, and construction should come with project labor agreements.
In Congress, I’ll work to put ratepayer protections into federal law, so that large energy users carry the costs they create in every state. I’ll also push for national energy and water disclosure standards, and invest public dollars in public-interest computing rather than private windfalls.
FDR built the Tennessee Valley Authority so that power would serve the people of the valley. Our standard for the AI buildout should be the same: build it, and make sure New Yorkers share in it.
KEYWORDS: Ratepayer protection, Pay your own way, Earned incentives, not blanket exemptions, Extraction economy, Public costs, private profits Pause, not a ban, Shared prosperity / share in the gains
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?
I get the sense that New Yorkers want three things from their power: (1) that it’s affordable, (2) that it stays on, and (3) that it doesn’t make their kids sick. Those goals only conflict when we plan badly. My test for every energy decision is all three at once, measured by evidence.
Now through 2028, I do think we need to finish what we started, and keep the lights on. The cheapest, cleanest power is power we don’t waste. So I’d lead with efficiency, weatherization, and demand response, and target them first to low-income households carrying the heaviest energy burdens. At the same time, we should bring online the projects already built or under way, like:
- the Champlain Hudson line, now delivering Canadian hydropower to the city;
- offshore wind under construction off Long Island; and
- battery storage to replace the dirty peaker plants in neighborhoods like Sunset Park and the South Bronx.
We should also keep our existing nuclear plants running. And we should retire fossil plants only when the grid operator confirms that replacements are actually online. Closing a plant before then is a promise, not a plan.
Beyond 2028, I do think we need to start building the backbone. That means new transmission connecting upstate generation to downstate demand. It means new nuclear capacity, which the state has already begun pursuing, as a firm, zero-carbon complement to wind and solar. And it means a cap-and-invest program in place by the 2028 deadline, with revenue returned directly to households so that cutting pollution lowers bills instead of raising them.
I’d measure every option against four things:
the grid operator’s reliability margins; the full cost per delivered megawatt-hour, including transmission and backup; bill impacts on the lowest-income families; health outcomes in the communities that have breathed our pollution for decades.
In Congress, I’d protect permitted offshore wind projects from political stop-work orders. I’d also back bipartisan work on nuclear licensing and transmission permitting. Republicans and Democrats have already found common ground on both.
KEYWORDS: Affordable energy; reliable power; clean air; grid reliability; energy affordability; clean energy; CLCPA; climate law; cap-and-invest; household rebates; energy efficiency; weatherization; demand response; low-income energy burden; peaker plants; battery storage; Champlain Hudson Power Express; hydropower; offshore wind; nuclear power; existing nuclear; advanced nuclear
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?
Young people aren’t rejecting science. They’re drowning in content and starving for trust. The same young adults who get their science from YouTube and TikTok say they trust scientists, doctors, and teachers far more than influencers. That gap is our opening. Public schools are where every child, regardless of zip code or family income, can learn how to tell the difference.
Teach how to think, not what to think. The most durable defense against misinformation isn’t a list of approved facts. It’s the habit of checking. Students should learn to ask who is behind a claim, what evidence supports it, and what other credible sources say. Some researchers call this lateral reading, and studies of classroom programs have shown measurable gains. This approach earns trust across the aisle because it doesn’t tell anyone what to believe. It gives them tools to judge for themselves.
Close the trust gap where it’s widest. Young people who aren’t on a college track are less likely to fact-check what they read. They’re the ones a public school system exists to serve first. Information literacy should be part of every high school, not an elective for the lucky few.
Bring trusted messengers into the room. Young people trust doctors and scientists. So we should connect classrooms with pediatricians, nurses, and researchers, and give families the same access. I support the City Council’s effort to give parents clear, accurate vaccine information, delivered with respect. Parents with questions deserve answers, not judgment.
Prepare students for AI-generated content. Deepfakes and synthetic text make this harder every year. Students need to learn how these tools work and how to spot what they produce. I’ve spent my career on technology accountability, and I’d bring that to this work.
In Congress, I’d fight to keep federal science agencies independent and their data public, so teachers and families have honest sources to turn to. I’d also support federal grants for information literacy, structured so local schools design their own programs.
KEYWORDS: Trust in science; scientific misinformation; science education; public schools; information literacy; media literacy; critical thinking; fact-checking; lateral reading; teach how to think; trusted messengers; doctors and scientists; teachers; social media; YouTube; TikTok; young adults; trust gap; non-college-track students; educational equity; vaccine information; vaccine misinformation
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?
Farmers feed us, and they deserve tools that work. Farmworkers and rural families deserve not to be poisoned by those tools. I don’t believe we have to choose. But I do believe that when the evidence points to serious harm, the burden of proof should shift to whoever profits from the risk, not to the people bearing it.
I would weigh five kinds of evidence. First, health outcomes in the people most exposed, including long-term federal studies that have followed tens of thousands of farmworkers, pesticide applicators, and their families for decades. Second, the regulator’s own record, including where federal reviews are incomplete, delayed, or under challenge in court. Third, what peer nations have decided; when dozens of countries ban a product, that doesn’t settle the question, but it tells us where to look harder. Fourth, real-world alternatives: for each crop, what replaces the product, at what cost, and with what effect on yields. Cornell’s integrated pest management research gives New York a strong base here. And fifth, who carries the risk. The heaviest exposure falls on farmworkers, many of them low-wage and without a strong voice in the policy process, and they should be at the table.
Applied to paraquat, the case for acting is strong. The bill before the Legislature would ban it starting in 2028. Paraquat is already restricted federally because it is so acutely toxic, and studies link exposure to Parkinson’s disease. It’s banned in the European Union, the United Kingdom, China, and Brazil, and no paraquat products remain registered in Canada. Meanwhile, the federal review has been reopened and could take years. A phase-out with a clear date gives farmers time to adjust, and I’d pair it with technical help and cost-share funding so the transition doesn’t fall on small family farms.
Going forward, my principle is that every product gets judged on its own evidence, not with blanket bans or blanket approvals. Where the data shows serious harm and workable alternatives exist, phase it out. Where the science is uncertain, fund the research and monitor exposure, so the next decision is better informed. In Congress, I’d fight to protect states’ right to set stronger protections, fund faster and more transparent federal pesticide reviews, and expand USDA support for farmers adopting safer pest management. Concern about pesticide safety now crosses party lines, and that’s a coalition worth building.
KEYWORDS: Pesticide safety; public health; food security; agriculture; New York farmers; family farms; farmworker health; farmworker protection; rural families; paraquat; paraquat ban; phase-out; Parkinson’s disease; acute toxicity; restricted use pesticides; EPA review; federal pesticide regulation
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 is one of the great talent magnets in the world. Nearly 138,000 international students study here, and most of them study science, technology, engineering, and math. Many stay to start companies, staff our labs, and teach the next generation. When federal policy makes it harder for them to come or stay, New York’s research and innovation economy pays first.
Security and openness can go together. Rigorous vetting is a legitimate national interest, and I support it. But the new federal rule caps student stays at four years, while most doctoral programs and many postdoctoral appointments run longer than that. A rule that forces our best researchers to reapply in the middle of their work doesn’t make us safer. It makes us less competitive.
New York should start by helping students navigate the new rules. SUNY and CUNY should give every affected student clear guidance on the new extension process, so no one falls out of status because of a paperwork deadline. The state should also track enrollment, research output, and workforce changes in real time, so policy responds to evidence rather than anecdotes. And we should treat the loss of international talent as a warning about how thin our domestic pipeline has become. New York should expand STEM pathways for first-generation and community college students, especially at CUNY and SUNY, so they are first in line for the opportunities a stronger science economy creates.
In Congress, I would push to align the four-year cap with the real length of doctoral and research programs, and to require clear standards and a chance to respond before any visa is revoked. I would support bipartisan efforts to offer a path to permanent residence for advanced STEM graduates, because we shouldn’t train the world’s best scientists and then send them to our competitors. And I would reform high-skill visa programs so wages reflect real market rates, so international talent strengthens American jobs rather than undercutting them. That last point matters. Openness to talent and protection of American workers aren’t opposites. Both depend on rules that are fair and enforced.
KEYWORDS: International students; STEM students; international researchers; scientific workforce; student visas; F-1 visa; J-1 visa; duration of status; four-year cap; extension of stay; PhD students; postdoctoral researchers; visa revocations; due process; travel ban; visa vetting; national security; talent retention; brain drain; global competitiveness; innovation economy; research universities; SUNY; CUNY; domestic STEM pipeline; first-generation students; community colleges; workforce development; green card for STEM graduates; high-skill immigration; H-1B reform; fair wages; protecting American workers; economic impact; data-driven policy
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?
When a late freeze wipes out a cherry crop in Wayne County, the cost shows up in Manhattan too; at the farmers market, the grocery store, and the school cafeteria. This spring, New York farmers lost an estimated $30 million to freezes, hail, and flooding. Our farmers aren’t asking for a bailout. They’re asking for a system built for the weather they actually face.
Prevention pays, so fund it up front. Every dollar spent before a disaster saves money after one. I’d expand cost-share funding for the tools that protect harvests like: frost protection for orchards; high tunnels and irrigation; drainage and water storage; and soil health practices that help fields hold water in drought and drain it in floods.
These are proven practices, and Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) already helps farmers use them. Extension needs stable funding so every county has the experts farmers rely on.
Replace debt with real protection. Right now, the main federal response to a disaster designation is emergency loans. A loan helps a farmer survive the season, but it adds debt to a business that just lost its crop. Federal crop insurance has also long been built around commodity crops like corn and wheat. New York grows apples, cherries, vegetables, and dairy, and those farmers often face gaps in coverage. I’d push to make insurance work better for specialty crops and small farms. I’d also support a standing disaster program, so aid arrives in weeks instead of waiting on Congress to pass emergency bills.
Keep the early warning systems strong. Accurate forecasts let farmers protect their crops before a freeze hits. That means fully staffing the National Weather Service and supporting local weather networks farmers already use.
Protect the people who do the work. Hotter summers put farmworkers at risk. Clear heat-safety standards protect workers and keep farms running.
Build steady markets. Programs that connect New York farms to schools, hospitals, and food banks give farmers reliable buyers in hard years. That’s stability for farmers and fresh food for families.
These ideas have support from farm groups, conservation groups, and both parties. Farming isn’t a partisan issue; it’s a food security issue.
KEYWORDS: Extreme weather; farm resilience; climate adaptation; New York farmers; family farms; food security; food prices; disaster designation; disaster relief; emergency loans; crop insurance; specialty crops; standing disaster program; prevention funding; cost-share; frost protection; irrigation; soil health; Cornell Cooperative Extension; National Weather Service
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?
[Disclosure: I used to serve on an independent ethics advisory council for Axon, one of the companies in this market. That’s exactly why I believe the rules have to bind every vendor, including the ones I’ve advised.]
License plate readers can help find a stolen car, a missing child, or a hit-and-run driver. That’s real public safety value. But the same cameras also log the movements of every law-abiding driver who passes. In Syracuse, residents learned that their driving data had been searched by agencies across the country, including for immigration enforcement. The city never decided to allow that. The problem in Syracuse wasn’t one vendor. It was the absence of rules. Switching companies doesn’t fix that. Laws do.
This is what I would support:
- Short retention. Data that doesn’t match an active investigation should be deleted within days, not stored for years.
- Narrow, documented uses. Searches should be limited to serious crimes and missing persons, and each one should be tied to a case number. No use for immigration enforcement, monitoring protests, or tracking people seeking reproductive health care.
- No back-door sharing. Out-of-state and federal agencies should get access only with a warrant. National data-sharing networks should be off by default, and vendors should be barred from selling or pooling data.
- Audits and public reporting. Every search should be logged and auditable. Agencies should publish annual reports on how many plates were scanned, how many matched, and what the system actually helped solve. Violations should carry real penalties, and;
- Local consent. No new surveillance system should go up without public review and a vote by elected officials.
New York’s Legislature already has bills that would set statewide standards, and I’d urge them to pass.
In Congress, I’d work to require a warrant before federal agencies can obtain Americans’ location data, whether from police or from data brokers. That idea has drawn support from both progressives and libertarian-minded conservatives. Privacy isn’t left or right. It’s American. I’d also attach these same safeguards to any federal grant money used to buy surveillance technology.
My career has been about making technology accountable to the people it affects. The test is simple: if a tool keeps us safe, it can survive rules that keep us free.
KEYWORDS: License plate readers; ALPR; surveillance technology; privacy; civil liberties; data retention; data sharing; warrant requirement; Fourth Amendment; federal access; immigration enforcement; back-door sharing; national lookup networks; public safety; missing persons; serious crimes; audits; transparency; public reporting; local consent; community oversight; vendor-neutral rules; Flock; Axon; Syracuse
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?
In June 2023, New York City’s sky turned orange and asthma emergency visits spiked across all five boroughs. The research since then gives us a clear lesson, and an honest one.
Researchers have found real short-term harm: a sharp rise in asthma-related emergency visits on the worst smoke days. Other researchers found that this spike was only slightly higher than on a bad spring pollen day. And no one yet knows the long-term effects. I take both findings seriously. That points to a strategy of smart preparation, not panic: invest in measures that protect people from smoke, and that also pay off on high-pollution, high-pollen, and extreme-heat days.
To address this, I would invest in a few things. First, I would invest in clean air where people spend their days. Upgrade air filtration in public schools, senior centers, and public housing. Better filters protect children from smoke, and also from everyday pollution and respiratory viruses. Second, I would provide help for the most vulnerable households. Provide air purifiers to low-income families with asthma or heart and lung disease, through Medicaid and public health programs. Asthma doesn’t fall evenly on New Yorkers, and our response shouldn’t either. Finally, I would clean air centers, using the cooling center model so people without good ventilation at home have a safe place to go during bad air days. Protections for outdoor workers. Delivery workers, construction crews, and sanitation workers can’t stay inside. Clear rules for masks, breaks, and adjusted schedules during hazardous air protect them.
In Congress, I’d protect the federal systems that make all this possible: air quality monitoring, smoke forecasting, and public health tracking. I’d also support stronger U.S.–Canadian cooperation on wildfire prevention and response. And I’d keep working to cut the emissions that are making fire seasons longer and more severe.
KEYWORDS: Wildfire smoke; air quality; clean air; public health; asthma; respiratory health; emergency department visits; PM2.5; preparedness; clean air centers; air filtration; schools; senior centers; public housing; air purifiers; vulnerable households; health equity; outdoor workers; worker protections; air quality 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?
I oppose the proposed cuts. The administration’s budget would cut NIH funding by about 12% and cap the support research institutions receive for labs, equipment, and compliance at 15%. That’s not reform; it’s retreat. The stakes for New York are concrete. NIH sent nearly $3.6 billion to New York scientists in 2024, supporting about 35,000 jobs. Nearly every new medicine approved in the last decade traces back to publicly funded research, and New York trains one in seven American doctors. When we cut research, we cut the pipeline of treatments and of the people who deliver them. Congress rejected even deeper cuts last year with bipartisan votes, because medical research isn’t a partisan cause. Cancer, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes don’t check party registration.
In Congress, I’d fight to hold NIH funding at least level and grow it with inflation. I’d also reform overhead costs rather than gut them. Taxpayers deserve to know where those dollars go, and research institutions have proposed a more transparent model that I’d advance instead of an arbitrary cap that would close labs. I’d work to restore stability, so grants aren’t terminated midstream without clear cause and due process, because science runs on multi-year commitments and unpredictability alone is driving talent away. I’d protect training grants and early-career awards, especially for young scientists from low-income and first-generation backgrounds who can’t wait out a funding drought. And I’d partner with Albany on state efforts to diversify research funding, so New York isn’t one federal budget away from losing its scientists to Texas, California, or Europe. FDR understood that public investment in discovery is how a nation builds its future. We shouldn’t be the generation that stops building.
KEYWORDS: NIH funding; medical research; biomedical research; New York research sector; research jobs; budget cuts; indirect costs; 15% cap; overhead reform; transparency; appropriations; bipartisan support; grant terminations; due process; research stability; scientific workforce; training grants; early-career scientists; first-generation scientists; brain drain; academic medical centers; new treatments and cures