Tony Sabio

I believe the federal government has an important role in funding basic scientific research, particularly where that research strengthens American innovation, economic competitiveness, national security, energy independence, and our ability to compete with countries like China. But federal research funding should be competitive, merit-based, transparent, and accountable to the taxpayer.

The National Science Foundation is a good example of where federal investment can help build the foundation for discoveries that eventually become new technologies, companies, industries, and American jobs. NSF supports roughly one-quarter of federally funded basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and universities.

I also strongly support keeping high-value federal science institutions and their skilled workforces here in Northern Virginia when it makes operational and economic sense. NSF is remaining in Alexandria, with approximately 1,600 positions moving to its new headquarters in the Carlyle neighborhood. That is good for Alexandria, good for the 8th District, and an opportunity to strengthen the region as an innovation center.

But my goal goes beyond protecting federal jobs. My Promise for America calls for building a new private-sector jobs ecosystem centered on manufacturing, innovation, skilled trades, emerging technology, AI readiness, advanced energy, cybersecurity, and critical technology production. I want institutions like NSF to help serve as anchors for a larger innovation economy—connecting universities, entrepreneurs, researchers, manufacturers, and private investment so discoveries made with American research dollars can become American companies and American jobs.

I would oppose arbitrary cuts that weaken strategically important scientific capabilities, but I would also demand regular program reviews, strong oversight, and measurable outcomes. We should fund science because it advances the national interest—not because Washington has always funded a particular program.

America has led the world because we have never been afraid of discovery and innovation. My objective is to make sure the next generation of breakthroughs—in energy, AI, advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, and other critical technologies—is researched here, developed here, and ultimately creates jobs here in America.

KEYWORDS: America’s Greatest Days Are Still Ahead of Us

Healthcare should put the American people back in the driver’s seat.

The affordability problem is real. A 2025 Altarum survey of more than 1,380 Virginia adults found that 72% were worried about affording healthcare in the future, and 69% reported delaying or going without care because of cost.

I believe America can do better, but I do not believe the answer is simply handing more control of our healthcare system to Washington. I believe in capitalism and genuine free-market competition. When consumers have choices, understand what things cost, and providers have to compete for their business, I believe we can drive costs down while improving quality, innovation, and customer service.

Unfortunately, healthcare today often does not operate like a true competitive marketplace. Patients frequently have little idea what a procedure, test, medication, or hospital service will cost until after they receive the bill. They may have limited choices among insurers or providers, and changing jobs can mean changing or losing coverage. That leaves the patient with too little control.

My American Health Freedom Plan starts by changing that relationship. I would protect coverage for people with pre-existing conditions while increasing competition, patient choice, portability, and transparency. Healthcare decisions should remain between patients, their families, and their doctors—not insurance companies or government bureaucracies.

First, I would make real price transparency a priority. Patients should be able to know and compare prices before receiving non-emergency care whenever reasonably possible. My plan calls for upfront pricing disclosure, standardized billing, public comparison tools, and meaningful enforcement of transparency requirements. If hospitals, providers, and insurers know patients can compare price, quality, and service, they have a greater incentive to compete for those patients.

Second, I would expand competition and consumer choice. I support allowing Americans greater ability to purchase health insurance across state lines where appropriate, expanding portability so people are not trapped in a plan simply because of where they work, and giving families more control over their healthcare dollars through expanded Health Savings Accounts.

Third, we have to expand access to actual healthcare—not simply insurance cards. That means addressing provider shortages, expanding direct primary care, protecting access to telehealth, and using technology to reach people who have difficulty getting an appointment or reaching a provider. My plan specifically calls for permanent telehealth protections and solutions for rural and underserved communities.

Fourth, we need more competition throughout the healthcare industry. I would examine anti-competitive practices, consolidation, and prescription-drug middlemen that can increase costs without improving the patient’s care. A free market only works when there is genuine competition—not when a handful of large organizations dominate the choices available to consumers.

I do not want a healthcare system controlled by Washington, but I also do not want one where the American patient feels powerless against an insurance company, hospital system, or pharmaceutical company.

I want doctors, hospitals, insurers, and drug companies competing for the American patient’s business. They should have to earn that business through better prices, better outcomes, innovation, and better customer service.

My goal is straightforward: lower costs, more choices, better access, better quality, and greater control for the American people.

Healthcare is one of the most personal decisions a family makes. The patient should be in the driver’s seat, the doctor should be beside them, and government should establish fair rules of the road—not decide where they are going.

KEYWORDS: America’s Greatest Days Are Still Ahead of Us

Yes. I support targeted programs when there is a demonstrated gap in access, but they should be focused, accountable, and designed to expand patient choice—not create another layer of bureaucracy.

My overall healthcare philosophy is to put the American people in the driver’s seat. I believe capitalism, transparency, and free-market competition can lower costs while improving quality and customer service. But competition only works when people actually have access to providers and meaningful choices.

For rural and underserved communities, I support expanding telehealth, direct primary care, and incentives that help bring doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals into areas facing provider shortages. My Promise for America specifically calls for addressing provider shortages and expanding access in rural and underserved communities.

For mothers and maternity care, I support better access to prenatal and postpartum care and stronger support for women facing difficult pregnancies. If we want more women to choose life, we also have to make sure they know they will have medical, financial, and community support before and after the birth of their child.

For mental healthcare, I support expanding the mental-health workforce, tele-mental-health services, and earlier access to care. We should not wait until someone reaches a crisis before they can get help.

I would also protect services for Americans with significant disabilities and families who depend on home- and community-based care. We should fight fraud and waste, but people with serious disabilities should not become the easiest place for government to cut spending. We also need to strengthen the caregiver workforce through training, recruitment, retention, and better career pathways.

My principle is simple: identify the barrier, expand the choices, measure the results, and keep the patient in control. Government should help make sure a functioning marketplace exists—not take over the healthcare decisions that belong to patients, families, and their doctors.

KEYWORDS: America’s Greatest Days Are Still Ahead of Us

Virginia should remain a leader in technology and innovation, but innovation should not come at the expense of the family paying the electric bill.

Northern Virginia is the largest data-center market in the world, and that industry brings investment, jobs, tax revenue, and an important role in America’s technology economy. But it also creates extraordinary demand for electricity and requires major investments in generation, transmission, substations, and other infrastructure. Virginia’s own JLARC study concluded that Northern Virginia accounts for about 13% of reported global data-center capacity and that continued growth will require substantial additional power infrastructure.

My principle is simple: growth should pay for growth. If a data center requires a new substation, transmission upgrades, additional generation, or other infrastructure primarily because of its demand, the developer and large energy user should bear a fair share of those costs. Residential customers should not be asked to subsidize infrastructure built primarily to serve some of the largest electricity consumers in the world.

I support separate rate structures for very large-load customers, strong minimum-payment commitments before utilities build infrastructure on their behalf, and protections against residential ratepayers being stuck with stranded costs if a proposed data center is delayed, downsized, or never built. Virginia’s State Corporation Commission has already moved in that direction by establishing a separate GS-5 class for customers demanding 25 megawatts or more, along with minimum-demand payment requirements intended to protect other customers.

But protecting ratepayers is only half of the answer. We also need more energy. My Promise for America is built around energy abundance: modernizing our grid, increasing transmission and substation capacity, strengthening reliability, rebuilding critical equipment supply chains, and dramatically expanding reliable American generation.

That is why advanced nuclear power and small modular reactors are central to my plan. I support creating Nuclear Ready Grid Zones where states, utilities, and private developers can accelerate advanced nuclear deployment, including generation capable of supporting major data-center and manufacturing loads. Instead of responding to growing demand by continually raising the cost of scarce electricity, America should increase the supply of reliable power.

I also believe data centers need to be strategically located. Economic development matters, but so do the families already living in these communities. Local decisions should seriously consider proximity to homes, transmission infrastructure, noise, water use, traffic, and the capacity of the existing electric grid.

As a former town manager, I understand that infrastructure has a cost and somebody eventually pays for it. The responsibility of government is to make sure that cost is allocated fairly—not simply passed along to the easiest customer to bill.

Utility rate design in Virginia is primarily a state responsibility through the State Corporation Commission, so I would not pretend that a member of Congress sets Dominion’s residential rates. My role in Congress would be to attack the underlying problem: accelerate reliable generation, modernize the grid, reform permitting, strengthen domestic transformer and critical-equipment manufacturing, and support federal policies that prevent extraordinary large-load costs from being unfairly shifted onto ordinary households.

I welcome data centers, AI, and technological growth. I want Virginia and America to lead the world in these industries. But leadership requires responsibility. The companies creating extraordinary demand should help pay the extraordinary costs of serving that demand—and the family at the kitchen table should not be handed the bill for the server farm down the road.

We can have innovation, economic growth, and affordable electricity. The answer is fair cost allocation and more American energy—not asking Virginia families to choose between technological progress and an affordable electric bill.

KEYWORDS: America’s Greatest Days Are Still Ahead of Us

A lower overall vacancy rate is encouraging, but the problem is not solved. Virginia still faces serious shortages in critical areas such as special education, science, mathematics, and early childhood education.

My approach would focus on recruiting talented people into these high-demand fields, removing unnecessary barriers to entering the classroom, and giving great teachers a reason to stay.

STEM deserves particular attention because this is not only an education issue—it is an economic and national-competitiveness issue. My Promise for America is built around expanding American leadership in advanced manufacturing, AI, cybersecurity, nuclear technology, skilled trades, and emerging technologies. We cannot build that workforce if our children do not have excellent math and science teachers preparing them.

I would support targeted scholarships, loan assistance, and recruitment incentives for teachers who commit to critical-shortage fields such as special education, mathematics, science, and early childhood education, particularly in communities where vacancies are hardest to fill.

I also want to create more pathways into teaching without lowering standards. A talented engineer, scientist, cybersecurity professional, veteran, or experienced technical professional should have a practical path to bring that knowledge into a classroom. I would support partnerships among school divisions, universities, community colleges, and private employers that provide accelerated teacher preparation, residencies, mentoring, and appropriate alternative-certification pathways while maintaining strong expectations for classroom competency.

Retention is just as important as recruitment. We should compensate teachers competitively, reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, and create career pathways that allow outstanding educators to advance financially and professionally without having to leave the classroom for administration.

For special education, I would protect IDEA responsibilities, support preparation and recruitment of special-education professionals, and make sure funding intended for students with disabilities actually reaches the classrooms, teachers, specialists, and families it was designed to serve.

The larger principle is simple: identify where the shortages actually are and build the workforce to meet them. Washington should not micromanage Virginia classrooms, but it can help remove barriers, support targeted workforce pipelines, and invest in areas of genuine national need.

For STEM especially, I see an opportunity to connect education with America’s future. If we want the next generation building nuclear reactors, designing semiconductors, securing our networks, developing AI, and creating the technologies that keep America competitive, it starts with a great math or science teacher inspiring a student in a Virginia classroom today.

KEYWORDS: America’s Greatest Days Are Still Ahead of Us

My decisions on federal science funding would be guided by a simple principle: America should invest in discovery where it strengthens our health, prosperity, national security, and ability to lead the world—while demanding scientific merit and accountability for every taxpayer dollar.

I strongly support basic research. Not every important discovery produces an immediate commercial return, and some of the technologies and medical advances we depend on today began with fundamental research whose eventual application was not obvious at the time. NSF’s existing merit-review system is designed around intellectual merit, broader societal impact, and evaluation of results, which is the kind of competitive, evidence-based approach I would want federal research funding to follow.

My priorities would be:

• Scientific merit before politics. Funding decisions should be driven by rigorous science, qualified researchers, reproducibility, and the potential to advance knowledge—not partisan ideology or political fashion.

• American health and medical breakthroughs. NIH research should remain focused on preventing disease, improving diagnosis and treatment, extending healthy lives, and reducing illness and disability. That is the core purpose of NIH and an appropriate federal responsibility.

• National competitiveness and security. I would place significant emphasis on fields where America cannot afford to surrender leadership: AI, cybersecurity, quantum science, biotechnology, semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, energy technology, and nuclear science. NSF itself currently identifies many of these technologies as major research areas. This aligns directly with my Promise for America, which calls for a new American jobs ecosystem based on manufacturing, innovation, AI readiness, emerging technology, and critical-technology production.

• Turn American research into American opportunity. When taxpayers help fund discoveries, I want more of the resulting innovation, intellectual property, companies, manufacturing, and jobs to stay in the United States. Federal research should be an engine that helps American entrepreneurs and private investment take discoveries from the laboratory into the marketplace.

• Accountability and stewardship. Supporting science does not mean writing blank checks. I would support strong audits, program reviews, safeguards against waste and duplication, protection of sensitive research from foreign adversaries, and measurable accountability. Research agencies should be able to explain what they are trying to accomplish and how taxpayer dollars advance their missions.

I would also protect the research workforce itself. America cannot lead scientifically if young researchers, engineers, physicians, and technical professionals see no future here. We should develop domestic talent, strengthen partnerships among universities, community colleges, laboratories, and private industry, and build pathways into the high-demand scientific and technical careers that will define the next generation of the American economy. That is consistent with my platform’s emphasis on workforce development, AI skills, apprenticeships, and emerging-technology careers.

I do not see this as a choice between supporting science and being fiscally responsible. Good government should be capable of doing both.

America has led the world because we have always been a nation of builders, inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs, and people willing to explore what comes next. I want federal science policy to preserve that spirit: fund excellent research, protect the taxpayer, strengthen American security and health, and make sure American innovation continues to create American opportunity.

KEYWORDS: America’s Greatest Days Are Still Ahead of Us

I believe the federal government should be strong where it needs to be, efficient where it can be, and always accountable to the American people.

When it comes to public health, science, and research and development, we are talking about more than positions on an organizational chart. We are talking about scientists, physicians, engineers, researchers, cybersecurity professionals, and technical experts whose work can protect American lives, strengthen our national security, and help keep our country at the forefront of innovation.

I do not believe every federal position should automatically be protected simply because it exists. But I also reject the idea that good government is measured by how many jobs we can eliminate. The question should be: What does America need this agency and this workforce to accomplish?

As a member of Congress, I would protect funding for mission-critical positions in areas such as biomedical research, public health, emerging disease threats, AI, cybersecurity, advanced energy, nuclear technology, and other fields important to America’s security and economic future.

At the same time, taxpayers deserve accountability. I would support regular workforce reviews, stronger audits, clear performance standards, and the elimination of duplicative programs and unnecessary bureaucracy. If a position is essential to the mission, we should recruit and retain the best person we can find. If a position or program no longer serves a meaningful purpose, government should have the courage to change it.

I would also make sure our science and technical agencies can compete for exceptional talent. America should not lose a brilliant scientist, engineer, physician, or researcher simply because a federal hiring system takes months to make a decision. We can make government more efficient without lowering standards or abandoning merit.

And I would never forget that federal employees are people—not political talking points. Many have dedicated their careers to serving this country. Reform should be thoughtful, professional, and based on mission and performance, not political winds.

My approach is not bigger government or smaller government for its own sake. It is better government.

Protect the people and capabilities America truly needs. Eliminate waste where it exists. Reward excellence. Demand accountability. And make sure every taxpayer dollar helps keep America healthy, secure, innovative, and prepared for the future.

I believe America’s greatest breakthroughs are still ahead of us. Our responsibility is to make sure the government has the talent necessary to help America reach them—without asking taxpayers to finance bureaucracy that does not advance the mission.

KEYWORDS: America’s Greatest Days Are Still Ahead of Us

Science should inform public policy, but it should never replace common sense, judgment, or accountability.

Throughout my career, I learned that leaders rarely have perfect information. You bring the best experts to the table, challenge assumptions, study the evidence, understand the risks, and then make the best decision you can for the people you serve.

I would bring that same approach to Congress. Whether the issue is healthcare, energy, infrastructure, manufacturing, or emerging technology, I want scientists, engineers, physicians, and other experts helping us understand the facts. But elected leaders must also consider individual freedom, economic consequences, national security, cost, and the real-world impact on American families.

And when the evidence is uncertain or changing, we should simply tell the American people the truth: what we know, what we do not know, and why we are making the decision we are making.

America has always advanced by combining scientific discovery with common sense and human judgment. Good leadership means listening to the experts, asking the hard questions, and having the courage to change course when the facts change.

KEYWORDS: America’s Greatest Days Are Still Ahead of Us