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

During an average week, I rely on a mix of public transit, primarily the Green Line, and my electric car. Using both systems regularly gives me a clear, firsthand view of how essential reliable, accessible, and modern transportation infrastructure is for people’s daily lives.

Riding the L has shown me the deep need for sustained investment and improvement in our transit system's infrastructure. From aging stations to limited line extensions, it’s clear how much work remains to modernize infrastructure, improve accessibility, and ensure every neighborhood is connected. I’ve also seen how past transportation decisions, like the history of the Blue Line and the communities it cut through, reflect a broader pattern of infrastructure failing to respect or uplift the people it’s meant to serve.

Driving an electric car reinforces this perspective. It highlights the importance of building out green infrastructure. This included charging access, safe roadways, and thoughtful urban planning that reduces emissions while improving mobility options for everyone. Together, these experiences shape my view that transportation policy must prioritize equitable investment, expanded transit access, and infrastructure that strengthens communities rather than divides them. I believe in fighting for funding that supports the future: modernized L stops, extended lines, redesigned highway overpasses, accessible stations, neighborhood communal spaces, and greener, more resilient systems that make it easier for people to move through their city with dignity and opportunity.

What are some transportation challenges in your district?

One of the biggest transportation challenges in the district is the lack of adequate extensions to both bus and train lines. Too many neighborhoods, especially on the West and South Sides, are underserved. This has meant leaving residents with long walks, unreliable transfers, or no practical transit option at all. This is compounded by outdated, crumbling, and unsafe waiting infrastructure, particularly during harsh weather. People deserve stations and shelters that reflect dignity, safety, and modern standards.

Another challenge is the way our current system still prioritizes car-centric planning. When communities are forced to rely on parking requirements and sprawling development patterns, it becomes harder to build walkable neighborhoods and harder for public transit to function efficiently. Investing in collective public transit is not just about mobility, it’s about shaping communities where people can live, work, and move without needing a car for every trip.

Many of these issues can be addressed with strong federal support. Federal funding can help modernize stop infrastructure, extend bus and rail lines, and build new stations in the areas that have been overlooked for decades. It can also help us “build further and build back better” by supporting transit‑oriented development, improving accessibility, and ensuring that every neighborhood benefits from reliable, frequent, and safe public transportation.

Ultimately, the challenge is clear. We need to expand, modernize, and rethink our transportation network so it truly serves the people who rely on it every day.

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

Congress has a critical responsibility in setting national priorities for public transit, passenger rail, and transportation accessibility. Many of the challenges we face, especially around rail, cannot be solved by cities or states alone. Only Congress has the authority and scale to drive the large‑scale projects and long‑term investments that modern, reliable transit requires.

A major issue is the way freight rail currently dominates shared rail corridors. Amtrak is legally entitled to first priority, yet in practice, its trains are routinely delayed by increasingly long commercial freight trains. This commercial overuse of shared lines clogs the system, undermines reliability, and harms workers and local communities along these corridors. Congress must enforce Amtrak’s right‑of‑way, prevent commercial abuse of shared rail infrastructure, and invest in the upgrades needed to support both freight and passenger service without forcing them into conflict.

Strengthening passenger rail also means laying the groundwork for a true high‑speed rail network. The United States should be leading on this, not falling behind other countries. Only Congress has the power to make those investments at the scale required. Beyond rail, Congress plays an essential role in raising the standard for what Americans should expect from public transit. That includes modernizing existing systems, improving accessibility, and funding projects that move us away from congestion‑prone, car‑first infrastructure. Federal investment should prioritize collective public transit, walkable communities, and transportation networks that actually serve the people who rely on them every day.

In short, Congress must set bold national priorities, enforcing fair use of shared rail lines, investing in modern transit, and steering infrastructure policy toward a future that is more accessible, less congested, and better connected for everyone.

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 investment should prioritize collective public transit, walkable communities, and transportation networks that actually serve the people who rely on them every day. Federal funding should be directed toward infrastructure that reduces congestion rather than reinforcing car‑dependent development. I would support and co-sponsor legislation like the Build Green Infrastructure and Jobs Act, which would put $500 billion toward the electrification of the nation’s public transportation, including public buses, school buses, and rail systems.

I was glad to see Illinois pass legislation to direct $1.5 billion to avoid a fiscal cliff for Chicago’s transit agencies without fare hikes or service cuts. Particularly, I believe that redirecting public tax revenue from motor field purchases to public transit is an important tool to set our transportation priorities at the state level.

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

I strongly support investing in expanded passenger rail services in Illinois, including the development of high‑speed rail. High‑speed rail has the potential to serve both everyday commuters and tourists, and the latter alone could generate millions in additional tax revenue for the state. Reliable, fast rail connections make travel easier, more affordable, and more appealing. Thus leading to benefits that ripple across local economies.

We are already seeing the value of this investment at the state level. Metra is in the process of transitioning from a traditional commuter rail system into a true regional rail network. Because federal funding has been inconsistent, much of this progress has relied on state resources. At the federal level, we can do far more to empower and accelerate this transformation.

Right now, the furthest Metra extends is Kenosha. There is no reason Illinois shouldn’t pursue additional interstate connections. Expanding lines beyond our borders would funnel more people into the Chicago metropolitan area for day trips, tourism, and business. This would encourage travel that many people simply wouldn’t make if driving were the only option.

Expanding passenger rail, including high‑speed rail, also has long‑term financial benefits. As ridership grows, these systems can generate revenue that can be reinvested directly into infrastructure improvements. This creates a sustainable investment cycle that strengthens our transportation network, boosts economic activity, and improves mobility for residents across the region.

In short, expanding rail service is not just a transportation policy. It’s an economic development strategy, a climate strategy, and a commitment to building a more connected and accessible Illinois.

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?

Federal funding for major Illinois transportation projects, including the Red Line Extension and the Red‑Purple Modernization, has become increasingly uncertain under the current administration. In a climate where federal support is no longer guaranteed, we need to take a hard look at how our revenue is used and ensure it is actually reinvested in our communities.

One of the most immediate steps is reclaiming local revenue streams that have been siphoned away. Our parking garages and parking meters were sold to foreign investment firms, and as a result, tens of millions of dollars that could support infrastructure upgrades are leaving the state every year. If the administration in Washington is serious about fighting for Americans, then returning control of these assets and the revenue they generate should be part of that commitment.

By winning back our meters and restoring local ownership of these critical assets, we can redirect that revenue toward the projects that keep Illinois moving. This includes modernizing transit lines, expanding service, and ensuring that every neighborhood benefits from safe, reliable, and future‑focused infrastructure. Strengthening our own financial foundation is the most effective way to protect these projects from shifting political winds and to guarantee long‑term investment in the communities that depend on them.

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?

The Trump administration has effectively carried out a military-style invasion of Chicago and several other cities nationwide, driven by political spectacle rather than public safety. Operation Midway Blitz was officially justified as a crime-fighting measure in Chicago, yet it has noticeably failed to coordinate with local law enforcement in addressing actual crime. Instead, the operation has indiscriminately swept up residents from schools, workplaces, houses of worship, and neighborhoods where people play vital roles in civic and social life. The operation has devastated local economies by making people afraid to go to work or participate in community life, starving small businesses of revenue and eroding the cultural vibrancy of a city built on the diversity of our communities. Most egregiously, it has inflicted unlawful and unconstitutional physical harm on innocent people. These enforcement actions have been a huge disaster, clearly designed to fuel a right-wing national narrative promoted by commentators and politicians with no real connection to our city and state.

I would advocate for legislation to abolish ICE and completely restructure federal immigration and customs enforcement under competent leadership. I would eliminate the authority of federal agents to make arrests, particularly armed arrests, based on arbitrary factors like skin color, accent, or other pretexts that currently justify mass sweeps of communities without meaningful investigation. I would work to reaffirm that immigration violations are civil matters and do not warrant the violent enforcement tactics we have witnessed. This includes curbing the use of firearms and other deadly force in immigration operations entirely. I would also push for legislation to establish accountability for officers and decision-makers who overreach, including those responsible for harming or killing innocent civilians. Furthermore, I would champion stronger anti-commandeering laws to prevent future hostile takeovers of state and municipal resources and personnel.

I support a comprehensive, accessible pathway to citizenship for people who have lived, worked, and contributed to our communities over a long period of time. Immigrants are America’s superpower, and they contribute every day to making our country better and stronger. There should be a clear and realistic timeline, whether that is five, ten, or fifteen years, centered on community participation, permanence, and accountability, rather than arbitrary hurdles. Additionally, I believe we should create affirmative programs for immigrants who work to build our country.