Ohio

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?

Technological growth should not come at the expense of Ohio families, our natural resources, or the reliability of our infrastructure.

I support an Ohio-first approach to data center development. Large data centers should bear the costs of the additional electric, water, and infrastructure capacity their operations require rather than shifting those costs onto residential ratepayers. Communities should also have access to clear information about projected energy and water consumption before major projects are approved.

I support preserving meaningful local control over land-use decisions. What makes sense in one Ohio community may not make sense in another, and residents and local governments deserve a meaningful voice in development decisions.

Finally, Ohio needs a long-term energy strategy that expands reliable generation and grid capacity alongside technological growth. We should encourage innovation in energy efficiency, water conservation, and cooling technologies so that economic development and environmental stewardship reinforce one another.

Ohio can be a leader in advanced technology while protecting affordability, reliability, local communities, and our natural resources.

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?

I support an indefinite moratorium on any new data centers. Additionally, I would like to see the tax breaks on existing data centers removed. These tax breaks have already cost Ohio 2.3 billion dollars in lost revenue. I would also like to mandate that existing data center power their operations through green energy sources, not natural gas which has led to Ohio opening up fracking in state parks and our only national forest. AI is a pandora’s box which needs to be heavily regulated and slowed down.

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?

I would support a moratorium on new large-scale data centers until we understand their impact on Ohio’s power, water, land, and communities. They should pay the full cost of the infrastructure they require, not shift those costs onto Ohio families, and communities should have a meaningful voice in whether they are built. Technological growth should serve Ohioans, not come at their expense.

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?

Strict enforcement of environmental regulations.Engineering standards to meet environmental standards- such as closed loop water systems, alternative renewable power source, etc. Public participation in decision making. No behind the closed door deals.

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?

Slow it down

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?

God calls us to be wise stewards of His Creation and faithful protectors of our neighbors. Rapid technological growth should never compromise our grid, drain our water supply, or burden hardworking families. To balance AI growth with community stability, I support three key priorities: Protect Local Resources: Data centers must fund their own utility upgrades and recycle water so residents don’t face higher bills, dry wells, or power outages. Uphold Local Control: Over 100 Ohio communities placed moratoriums because their voices were ignored. Local towns must keep the final say over what gets built in their backyards. Corporate Accountability: No tax breaks without binding commitments to local jobs and complete off-setting of their resource strain. True progress honors both economic opportunity and our moral duty to protect our homes, families, and resources.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Data center rules are outside the Secretary of State’s job, but I support Don Kissick’s call for no special tax breaks, no secret agreements, and requiring data centers to make their own electricity and reuse cooling water. New technology should help Ohio without putting extra costs on families or wasting our water. As Secretary of State, I would stay within my authority while speaking up for those priorities.

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?

I wholeheartedly believe in artificial intelligence. In fact, it was an AI agent that I built that even alerted me to this email, and sent me the link to fill out this survey. I don’t even read my email anymore due to AI.

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?

Several points: 1. Decisions to have data centers must be locally made, not forced upon local citizenry by national and state policies citing national security and economic development. 2. Data centers are not a sustainable source of economic development - while they bring great construction jobs – they do not bring many permanent jobs - thus do not warrant the type of stimulus granted by state government. 3. We must rely on facts and experts to understand the environmental impact and make sure we are doing what is important for our civilization and planet. 4. Our elected officials must make decision for the people not decisions based on the financial interests that are lining their respective pockets and campaigns (follow the money – especially with my opponent).

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?

Ohio needs to maintain a strong scientific and technical workforce. Our universities and research institutions benefit from talented students and researchers from around the world, particularly in STEM fields.

The federal government has the responsibility to establish and enforce immigration and visa requirements, including appropriate national security safeguards. Ohio should respect that responsibility while ensuring that changes in federal policy do not unnecessarily weaken our universities, research institutions, or ability to compete for scientific talent.

I would support stronger partnerships among Ohio universities, employers, and state government to identify critical workforce and research gaps, expand STEM opportunities for Ohio students, and retain talented graduates who are legally eligible to remain and work in the United States.

Our long-term goal should be to develop more scientists and engineers here in Ohio while continuing to make our state a destination for talented people who can contribute to our universities, economy, and communities.

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?

Ohio law enforcement agencies should not be allowed cooperate with ICE. America is at its best when it is a melting pot of individuals. Honestly, I am not sure what Ohio can do on a state level to offset our current xenophobic federal government.

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?

I would support making it easier for graduates in critical STEM fields to remain and work in Ohio, while investing in Ohio’s own STEM education and workforce. We should not make it harder for talented people to contribute to our scientific and economic future. Keeping these students after graduation could help welcome the industries of the future to our state.

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?

For H1B I’ve proposed a simple solution- develop a public website/app listing jobs seeking visa approval. Allow American citizens to apply and/or challenge the requirement. Same concept can be extended to student requirements.

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?

I agree you should be sold down

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?

A wise workforce policy balances national security and legal order with the Christian principle of stewarding talent and treating law-abiding neighbors with fairness. To address shifts in international STEM talent and protect Ohio’s economy, I support three key priorities: Invest in Local Talent First: Ohio must expand STEM education, trade programs, and apprenticeships to ensure our own students are equipped to fill high-tech workforce gaps. Keep Proven Talent Here: Foreign students who learn in Ohio, follow our laws, and contribute to vital research should have clear, merit-based pathways to stay, work, and strengthen our local economy. Firm Security with Clear Rules: National security and intellectual property protection are vital. Vetting must be thorough, but rules should be clear and fair so law-abiding students are treated with dignity. True stewardship means cultivating local talent while welcoming the global expertise needed to keep Ohio competitive.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Student visas are handled by the federal government, and deciding Ohio’s response to these changes is outside the Secretary of State’s job. The office oversees elections, business filings, and official records. As Secretary of State, I would focus on those duties and avoid making promises about visa rules or research workforce policies that I would not have the power to carry out.

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?

I don’t believe in it. Encourage American students to learn STEM instead of having them want to be tik tok influencers.

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?

My wife, Elizabeth, works as a compliance officer in the international office at the largest public state university in my congressional district – this topic is a daily topic discussed in my household. We cannot allow a government to push a Xenophobic agenda. We must have a legislative branch that functions and legislates for the will of the people and the benefit of the country. The cross-cultural aspects of our academic institutions are enriched and enhanced by global diversity. The unilateral and unconstitutional executive orders that allow the status of legal aliens to be revoked for a simple traffic offence does not make the USA a desirable place for international students. It is the government’s responsibility to allow for the protection of ALL people in this country and to ensure the Constitution and all of its amendments are upheld.

Q1 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. Ohio is home to outstanding universities, medical institutions, researchers, engineers, and innovators whose work contributes every day to the progress of our state and society. As a legislator, I would seek out that expertise and use the best available evidence to understand both the challenges we face and the likely consequences of the policies we consider.

I also believe policymakers should approach science with humility. Science is a process of discovery, and our understanding can change as new evidence emerges. When there is uncertainty or legitimate disagreement, government should be transparent about it. We should clearly communicate what we know, what we do not know, and why we are making a particular decision based on the information available.

Good policymaking means listening to experts while also considering the experiences of affected communities, economic realities, individual rights, and ethical considerations. When credible new evidence emerges, we should be willing to reconsider our assumptions and adjust policy accordingly.

Trust is built by being honest with people, not by overstating certainty.

Q1 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 should play a MAJOR role in policymaking. Look at what happens when policy makers ignore science: climate crisis, measles outbreaks, food recalls, and energy insecurity to name a few. The costs of cleaning these problems up, instead of just following science from the beginning, is astronomical.

Q1 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 should be the foundation of good policymaking, alongside the lived experience of the people affected. I would listen to qualified experts, examine the evidence, and remain willing to change course as that evidence evolves. When there is uncertainty, I would communicate it honestly rather than pretending we know more than we do.

Q1 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?

I’m an engineer. I believe factual data/evidence is the mandatory precursor to reasoning. Reasoning based on incorrect data will lead to incorrect conclusions and reasoning based on correct data will lead to correct conclusions. Only the correct conclusions can achieve progress and improving the standard of living for all. Regarding the scientific uncertainty, we must assess the risks of proving wrong vs right, clearly communicating with the public, and setting and managing their expectations.

Q1 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?

Science is very important to our everyday life, knowing how things operate scientifically. How beneficial to us scientifically, which is proven not unproven? If it’s proven, we’re utilized, if it’s unproven, it will, we will not

Q1 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 technical expertise are valuable tools God has given us to understand the natural world, steward resources wisely, and protect human life. In policymaking, data and expert input should serve as a practical guide to help us address complex challenges in health, energy, and technology with wisdom and care. However, technical data alone cannot replace ethical leadership. As elected leaders, our responsibility is to weigh expert advice against core moral principles—such as protecting fundamental freedoms, serving the vulnerable, and maintaining economic fairness. Experts inform the options, but leaders remain directly accountable to God and the people for the final decisions and their trade-offs. When communicating uncertainty or changing evidence, I believe in radical honesty and humility: Truthfulness: Acknowledge upfront what the data shows and where the limits of current knowledge lie. Humility: Admit when new information requires adjusting course, explaining clearly why the policy is changing so people are treated with respect rather than managed. Clarity: Translate technical concepts into plain, truthful language that builds public trust rather than confusion.

Q1 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 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.

Q1 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.

Q1 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?

As Secretary of State, I would listen to experts and use facts to help keep Ohio’s elections safe, fair, and easy to take part in. Experts can help us check voting machines and protect voters’ information.

If the facts change or experts aren’t sure, I would explain what we know, what we don’t know, and why we made a decision. I would use plain language so everyone can understand.

Healthcare, energy, roads, and manufacturing policy are generally outside the Secretary of State’s job.

Q1 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?

Science is the basis of truth. So if it isn’t science backed, I won’t even consider the argument. And there is no such thing as “evolving evidence” that’s a word that was made up to IGNORING science. And I can’t go for that. No no. No can do.

Q1 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?

As a high school classroom teacher of social sciences and a PhD student in leadership studies – facts and being well informed are the basis to successful academic pursuits, knowledge acquisition and decision making. As a congressperson, it is my duty to the people of this nation to make informed decisions – to do this, I must rely on expert testimony, scientific fact and evidence and rely on the people that have made their career in the fields the politicians are trying to alter. Our nation has gone too far without the consultation of experts and denying fact to make sound decisions. Our elected officials MUST be accountable to the people they represent – which includes making informed decisions.

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 important role in supporting scientific research and innovation. I have seen that firsthand through my own career in Research Administration, working with the agreements and partnerships that help make academic research possible.

Ohio’s universities, medical centers, and research institutions are tremendous assets. Public investment can support important research where the potential benefit to society is significant, but the cost, risk, or time required may make private investment alone insufficient.

I support competitive, merit-based research funding that enables both fundamental discovery and research addressing real-world challenges. I also support strong partnerships among government, universities, healthcare institutions, industry, and entrepreneurs that can translate discoveries into better lives and new economic opportunities.

When evaluating these investments, I would prioritize scientific merit, responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, transparency, and public benefit. Success can mean better health outcomes, stronger national security, new technologies, economic growth, or simply expanding our understanding in ways that enable tomorrow’s breakthroughs.

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?

The federal government should absolutely prioritize scientific research, and has done so at a respectable level until this current administration. Researching diseases, alternative energy, and sustainable agricultural practices would be a few of the areas to prioritize.

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 should fund scientific research that serves the public interest, especially basic research that private industry may not fund on its own. I would prioritize investments that improve lives, strengthen public infrastructure, expand opportunity, and advance knowledge, while measuring outcomes honestly and protecting research from political interference.

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 should fund scientific research and innovation. It’s an important foundation of nation building. Priorities would be 1) reaching conclusions, 2) documenting risk analysis, and 3) presenting and putting data in public domain.

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?

You need to stop some it make sure they got the proper safeguards in which to utilize it. So they don’t have accidental outbreaks within these institutions.

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 research funding should serve as a tool for human flourishing, life-saving innovation, and practical economic strength—not administrative waste or ideological agendas. To ensure research dollars truly serve Ohioans, I support three simple priorities: Practical, Life-Saving Results: Direct funds toward medical cures, advanced manufacturing, and energy independence that directly improve lives and strengthen local jobs. Strict Taxpayer Accountability: Demand full transparency, merit-based grants, and clear benchmarks so public money delivers real results rather than administrative overhead. Moral and Ethical Integrity: Ensure all publicly funded research respects human dignity, protects the sanctity of life, and maintains strong ethical guardrails. Targeted research investments must reflect both fiscal responsibility and our moral duty to serve our neighbors.

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 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.

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.

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?

Deciding how government money supports scientific research is outside the Ohio Secretary of State’s job. The office oversees elections, business filings, and official records. As Secretary of State, I would focus on those duties and leave research funding decisions to the officials responsible for them.

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?

Scientific research should be private and non profit based.

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?

It is the job of the federal government to fully fund programs that are in our nation’s interest. Science, Innovation and education should be fully funded by the federal government. We should NOT have divested our imploded our funding at the national level because of the Xenophobia of our leaders. If our government made the choice for science, technology and intellectual pursuits in the same vigor that they see the need for data centers to compete with China under the guise of national security and bombing Iran to stop a future threat of nuclear weapons that may never materialize. Our government MUST prioritize science for our future as a country a civilization and for humanity.