James Mills
LibertarianQ1 Q1 (Scientific Expertise and Governance): Scientific and technical expertise can inform decisions related to healthcare, energy, infrastructure, manufacturing, and emerging technologies. What role, if any, should scientific evidence and expert input play in your policymaking process, and how would you communicate scientific uncertainty or evolving evidence to the public?
Scientific evidence and expert input should play an important role in policymaking, especially in areas such as healthcare, energy, infrastructure and emerging technology. Good decisions require good information.
However, experts should inform policy, not dictate it. As elected officials, we are responsible for weighing scientific evidence alongside economic impacts, individual rights, community concerns and the real-world consequences of government action.
I would seek input from experts with different perspectives, examine the underlying data and remain willing to change course when new evidence warrants it.
Government also needs to be honest about uncertainty. Too often, evolving evidence is presented to the public as absolute certainty, which can undermine trust when recommendations later change. I would communicate what we know, what we do not know, where experts disagree and why a decision is being made.
Good government should follow evidence while remaining transparent, accountable and humble enough to admit when the evidence changes.
Q2 Q2 (Artificial Intelligence): Rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and large-scale data centers are increasing demand for energy and water infrastructure. Over 100 local Ohio communities have active moratoriums on data centers. What policies, if any, would you support to balance technological growth and economic opportunities with infrastructure reliability and environmental sustainability?
AI offers tremendous opportunities, but technological growth cannot come at the expense of Ohio communities.
I support an immediate pause on new large-scale data center construction until affected communities have meaningful input and buy-in. Before projects move forward, residents should know their projected energy and water consumption, infrastructure needs, environmental impact, permanent job creation and tax incentives.
I also support externality accounting. If a data center requires new electrical generation, transmission, water infrastructure or other public resources, those costs should be borne by the project, not shifted onto homeowners, farmers and small businesses.
We should also reevaluate taxpayer subsidies for these developments and protect private property from eminent domain primarily benefiting private projects.
Ohio should embrace innovation, including AI, but communities should help decide what gets built in their backyard. Growth should be transparent, sustainable and economically beneficial to the people who actually live there.
Q3 Q3 (Science Funding): Government research funding supports universities, medical centers, and technology development across Ohio and the nation. What role, if any, should the government play in supporting scientific research and innovation, and what outcomes would you prioritize when evaluating those investments?
Government has an appropriate role in supporting scientific research when there is a clear public benefit, particularly in areas where basic research may not attract immediate private investment but could produce significant long-term benefits.
In Ohio, I would prioritize research that improves healthcare outcomes, strengthens advanced manufacturing, develops reliable and affordable energy, improves agriculture and water quality, and helps create technologies that can become new Ohio businesses and jobs.
However, research funding should not become another form of corporate welfare. Grants should be competitive, transparent and regularly evaluated. Taxpayers should be able to see who received funding, why they received it and what resulted from the investment.
I would evaluate success through measurable outcomes such as scientific advancement, patents and commercialization, improved health or environmental outcomes, new businesses, private investment attracted and quality jobs created in Ohio.
Government can help innovation begin, but it should not permanently subsidize it.
Q4 Q4 (Jobs & Workforce): Ohio has the ninth largest international student population in the U.S., the majority of which study in STEM fields.The federal government is pursuing large-scale 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 Ohio respond to federal visa changes affecting international STEM students and researchers, and the resulting projected changes in the scientific workforce supply?
Immigration and visa policy is primarily a federal responsibility, but Ohio should be proactive in protecting our scientific and technical workforce.
International students and researchers contribute significantly to our universities, research institutions and economy. When talented people come to Ohio, earn advanced degrees and want to contribute here, we should want them to stay, innovate and build businesses.
I would work with universities and employers to identify workforce shortages created by federal visa changes and expand pathways for Ohio students into STEM, advanced manufacturing, engineering and research careers. Ohio can also help universities navigate changing federal requirements and advocate for predictable visa policies that protect national security without unnecessarily driving talented students and researchers elsewhere.
Long term, we should reduce our vulnerability to workforce disruptions by developing more homegrown STEM talent while continuing to make Ohio a destination for talented people from around the world.