Andrey Martinichin

Scientific evidence and expert input should be the foundation of policy, though not the only input. Experts can tell us what is likely to happen if we choose a given path. Residents, through their values and priorities, decide which path is worth taking. My process would be to consult relevant experts early, including engineers, public health officials, and utility and infrastructure specialists. I would ask them to lay out options, trade-offs, and confidence levels, not just a single recommendation. I would also seek out dissenting views and check who funds or benefits from any given study. On communicating uncertainty, I would be plain about what we know, what we don’t, and what could change our minds. Saying “this is our best current understanding, and here is how we’ll update it” builds more trust than false certainty. I would explain the reasoning behind decisions in everyday language, avoid jargon, and share the underlying data publicly. When new evidence emerges, I would say so openly and adjust policy without treating a change of course as a failure. Where risks are serious but evidence is incomplete, I would favor reversible, staged decisions such as pilot programs, with clear review points. Ultimately, science informs the decision, but the public should always understand how and why it was made.

The first priority is ratepayer protection. I’d back legislation requiring large data centers to pay the full cost of the grid upgrades and generation they trigger, with FERC and state regulators enforcing it. Ohio’s energy prices are up 34% since 2022, so families are already feeling the strain. Proposals to make data centers “pay their own way” have drawn support on both sides of the aisle, and I’d build on that. Second, I’d push for transparency. Large facilities should publicly report energy, water use, and emissions, so communities and regulators are working from real data.

Third, I’d oppose rolling back environmental standards for data centers and the power plants that serve them, and I’d favor faster permitting for transmission, grid storage, and new clean and firm power. That is how we add capacity without raising pollution or costs.

Fourth, I’d end blanket tax subsidies and tie any federal incentive to measurable local benefits and efficient water use.

Finally, Washington should support local decision-making, not override it. Communities are pausing projects because they lack information, and federal standards can supply a reliable baseline. The aim is to keep investment and jobs in Ohio while making sure the public isn’t left paying the bill.

Government should play a central role in research, especially where the payoff is too uncertain, too long-term, or too widely shared for private markets to fund on their own. Basic science, early-stage medical research, and foundational technologies like the internet and GPS all began this way, and private industry then built on them. In Congress, I’d support stable, predictable funding, because sudden cuts or delays waste years of work and drive talented researchers elsewhere. Ohio has a lot at stake, with major research universities, medical centers like the Cleveland Clinic, and a manufacturing base that turns discoveries into products. I’d back programs that link these together, including regional innovation hubs and partnerships with community colleges to train the technical workforce. When evaluating investments, I’d prioritize four outcomes: scientific quality, judged through independent peer review instead of politics; public benefit, such as better health outcomes, energy reliability, and national security; economic return, including jobs, new companies, and commercialized technology in places beyond the coasts; and workforce development. I’d also demand transparency, with results and spending reported publicly and unproductive programs ended. Not every project succeeds, and that is the nature of research. I’d judge the overall portfolio, not single failures, and explain that clearly to taxpayers.

International students are a real part of Ohio’s scientific pipeline. Nationally, 57% of international students study STEM fields, and graduate students are the largest group. Graduate students are often the ones staffing labs and research projects. Security screening is a legitimate federal responsibility, and I’d support targeted vetting for sensitive technologies. But broad restrictions risk pushing talent to other countries, and that hurts Ohio’s universities, hospitals, and manufacturers. opendoorsdata As a member of Congress, I’d push for a few things: Predictable rules. Fixed timelines for visa decisions, clear appeal options, and sensible transition periods for students already enrolled. The new fixed-admission-period rule is currently paused, since a federal court issued a nationwide injunction on September 14 delaying it. Congress shouldn’t leave something this important to the courts alone. Envoy Global Targeted security. Focus scrutiny on sensitive fields and specific threats instead of blanket bans on whole countries. Retention. Protect pathways like Optional Practical Training and create clearer routes to permanent residency for U.S.-trained STEM graduates who want to stay. A domestic pipeline. Increase investment in community college programs, apprenticeships, and K-12 STEM so Ohioans fill more of these roles. Workforce projections are uncertain, since they depend on court rulings and policy shifts that are still unfolding. I’d say so plainly and adjust as the evidence comes in.