What types of transportation do you use during an average week, and how has this shaped your view of transportation policy?

I do not own a car. During an average week, I primarily walk and use public transit, especially the L, to get where I need to go. I walk whenever it is safe to do so and only avoid it when temperatures become dangerously low. For campaign engagements, staff will sometimes give me rides, but in my day to day life, public transportation is how I get around.

Relying on walking and transit gives me a firsthand understanding of what works and what does not. Unreliable service, accessibility gaps, and underinvestment disproportionately affect people who do not have the option to drive. When transit fails, it is not a minor inconvenience. It can mean missing work, healthcare, or community.

That experience shapes my belief that transportation is not a luxury. It is essential public infrastructure. Policy should prioritize safe sidewalks, reliable and frequent transit, and fully accessible stations so people can live full lives without needing a car.

What are some transportation challenges in your district?

Our district faces chronic underinvestment in public transit infrastructure, accessibility gaps for seniors and people with disabilities, and unreliable service that makes daily life harder for working families. Aging stations, slow zones, and deferred maintenance undermine trust in the system.

At the same time, car-centric planning has made many streets less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Transportation should connect communities, not divide them. We need sustained investment that treats transit equity and safety as core priorities, not afterthoughts.

How do you view Congress’s role in setting priorities for public transit, passenger rail, and strengthening accessibility in transportation?

Congress has a central role in setting national transportation priorities and ensuring funding reflects public need, not political favoritism. That includes prioritizing public transit, passenger rail, and accessibility standards that serve seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income riders.

Congress must also exercise oversight to ensure funds are used efficiently and equitably. Transportation policy is climate policy, labor policy, and civil rights policy. Lawmakers should treat it accordingly.

What’s your position on the Federal government and Illinois’ current transportation infrastructure spending, and if you could change anything, what would it be?

Federal transportation spending falls short of what Illinois needs to maintain and modernize critical infrastructure. Too often, funding is reactive rather than proactive, leading to costly delays and emergency fixes.

I would push for sustained, predictable funding focused on maintenance, accessibility upgrades, and climate-resilient infrastructure, rather than one-time infusions that don’t solve long-term problems.

What is your position on investing to expand passenger rail service in Illinois, including the development of high-speed rail?

I strongly support expanding passenger rail in Illinois, including high-speed rail. Rail investment reduces emissions, connects regional economies, and gives people affordable alternatives to driving and flying.

Illinois is well positioned to be a national leader in modern rail, and Congress should treat passenger rail as essential infrastructure, not a side project.

Federal funding for Illinois transportation projects – such as the Red Line Extension and Red-Purple Modernization projects – has come under threat from the Trump administration. How do you plan to shore up funding for critical infrastructure projects under a hostile federal climate?

I will fight to protect and expand federal transportation funding through coalition-building, oversight, and legislative pressure. Congress controls the purse strings, and it must use that authority to block politically motivated funding cuts.

That means defending projects like CTA modernization and rail expansion, working with state and local leaders, and refusing to allow infrastructure funding to be used as leverage against communities.

Our streets have become increasingly militarized in the past several months as the Trump administration has ramped up DHS and ICE activity in our cities. This past summer, Congress voted to increase the ICE budget larger than most of the world's militaries.

What is your position on ICE and related immigration enforcement?

I oppose the expansion, militarization, and continued overfunding of ICE and related immigration enforcement agencies. These agencies consume tens of billions of dollars each year to detain, deport, and terrorize communities while failing to deliver safety or justice. That money could instead fund housing, public transit, healthcare, education, and climate resilience. These are investments that actually improve people’s lives.

We are in a break-glass moment for our democracy. Immigration enforcement has escalated into widespread civil and human rights abuses, including mass detention, family separation, and the outsourcing of cruelty to private contractors and foreign facilities. This is not public safety. It is state violence.

I will use every lawful power of my office to block further expansion of detention and deportation, end mass detention, restore due process, and hold enforcement agencies accountable. I support dismantling the current DHS enforcement framework created in the post-9/11 era and returning core functions to their appropriate departments, while preserving emergency preparedness and disaster response.

Building a police state was never the answer. Redirecting resources toward dignity, safety, and stability is.