- What role, if any, do you believe the United States should play on the global stage?

My views on foreign policy come from experience. I have worked on human rights and international law cases, helped bring the case against the man responsible for the torture and murder of Victor Jara, served at the Pentagon on national security and humanitarian-law issues, and serve today as an officer in the New Hampshire Army National Guard. Those experiences taught me that American power matters, but so do the principles that govern how we use it. The United States should lead, but leadership cannot mean endless wars, blank checks, or one set of rules for our adversaries and another for our allies. We should defend democracy, stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression, work with our allies, and use diplomacy whenever possible. We also have to stand up for human rights, including when Israel violates them. What has happened in Gaza, including mass civilian death, displacement, starvation, and genocide, is unconscionable. The United States should not fund or arm abuses of international law. We should demand the release of all hostages, protect civilians, expand humanitarian aid, and pursue a future based on security, dignity, and self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis. Military force should be a last resort, authorized by Congress and tied to a clear objective. America is strongest when our military strength is matched by diplomacy, alliances, the rule of law, and moral credibility.

- What is the greatest geo-political issue facing the United States today?

The greatest geopolitical challenge facing the United States is the erosion of an international order based on alliances, diplomacy, human rights, and the rule of law, and President Trump has made that problem worse. At a moment when Russia is waging war in Europe, China is expanding its global influence, and instability is spreading across the Middle East, Trump has weakened some of the very institutions America needs to compete. His administration dismantled USAID as an independent development agency, eliminated thousands of positions and programs, and transferred remaining foreign-assistance functions to the State Department, a transition that government watchdogs have found suffered from serious staffing and planning problems. We need to rebuild the State Department, restore a strong and independent USAID, and treat diplomacy and development as instruments of American strength, not charity. China understands that influence is built not only with aircraft carriers, but with infrastructure, investment, relationships, and presence. America should have the strongest military in the world, but military power alone cannot sustain American leadership. We need strong alliances, serious diplomacy, strategic foreign assistance, and a consistent commitment to human rights and international law, including when those principles are violated by our partners. Our relationship with Israel needs a complete reset, we need to stop sending weapons to Israel or our money, while ensuring we tackle with serious anti-semitism in the U.S, and that create a pathway to a two state solution and the elimination of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Trump's retreat from that kind of principled leadership has made America less influential, not more. Our task now is to rebuild it.

- How do you view America’s alliance system as it currently stands? What changes, if any, to the alliance structure would you like to see implemented?

America’s alliances are one of our greatest strategic advantages, and we should strengthen them, not treat them as protection rackets or transactional arrangements. NATO, our alliances in the Indo-Pacific, and our broader partnerships make America safer, deter aggression, and give us influence that China and Russia cannot easily replicate. But alliances should also come with accountability: our partners should contribute fairly to collective security, and no ally should receive a blank check when it violates international law or human rights. I would invest in rebuilding the State Department and our diplomatic capacity, deepen cooperation with democratic partners in Europe and Asia, and make our alliances about more than military power by coordinating on economic security, climate, technology, development, and human rights. America is strongest when we lead alongside allies, while remaining willing to tell even our closest friends when they are wrong.

- What role, if any, should U.S. foreign assistance play in advancing America's interests abroad, and what principles would guide your decisions on funding those programs?  How do you view the decision to shutter USAID?

Foreign assistance is not charity. Done well, it is one of the most cost-effective tools of American power. It can prevent instability before it becomes conflict, combat disease and hunger, strengthen democratic institutions, and build relationships in places where China and Russia are competing aggressively for influence. Funding should be guided by clear American interests, measurable results, strong oversight, and a commitment to human rights and international law. I believe the Trump administration’s decision to dismantle USAID as an independent development agency was a profound strategic mistake. USAID ceased implementing foreign assistance in July 2025 as its functions were shifted or discontinued, weakening decades of expertise and American presence around the world. We should rebuild a strong USAID alongside a properly funded State Department and recognize that diplomacy and development are essential parts of national security. America should compete with hospitals, food, vaccines, infrastructure, and ideas, not just weapons.

- What role should Congress play in authorizing or overseeing the use of U.S. military force abroad, including recent actions involving Iran?

Congress has a constitutional responsibility to decide when America goes to war, and for too long it has surrendered that responsibility to presidents of both parties. I believe we should repeal outdated Authorizations for Use of Military Force, including authorities written for conflicts more than two decades ago, and require Congress to debate and vote on any new sustained military action. That principle applies to Iran. The recent U.S. hostilities with Iran prompted repeated congressional efforts under the War Powers Resolution to require the removal of forces absent congressional authorization. I would have supported enforcing the War Powers Resolution and requiring President Trump to come to Congress before taking the country into a war with Iran. No president should have a blank check to wage war, and Congress should not provide one through vague authorities or unlimited funding. As someone who serves in uniform, I believe we owe the people we send into harm’s way something very basic: a clear mission, a compelling national interest, congressional authorization, rigorous oversight, and a plan for how the conflict ends.

- What outcomes should the United States pursue in its relations with Iran and what approaches do you support in achieving these goals?

Our goals with Iran should be clear: prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, protect American service members, reopen the Strait of Hormuz to safe international shipping, and prevent a wider regional war. The welfare of our troops has to come first. We should never send Americans into harm’s way without a clear mission, a compelling national interest, proper equipment and support, congressional authorization, and a realistic plan to bring them home. The current situation in the Strait of Hormuz is a strategic failure that threatens our service members, global commerce, and energy prices. We need a diplomatic off-ramp. I oppose regime-change wars, open-ended deployments, and blank checks for another endless conflict in the Middle East. Our objective should be a non-nuclear Iran, an open Strait of Hormuz, a safer region, and a foreign policy that never treats the lives of our service members as expendable.

- Do you support further aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia? If so, what types of aid would you vote for?

Yes. I strongly support continued U.S. aid to Ukraine. As someone who served at the Pentagon when Russia invaded Ukraine and who serves today in the New Hampshire Army National Guard, I believe this is both a moral and strategic imperative. Ukraine is fighting for its sovereignty, its democracy, and the principle that dictators cannot redraw borders by force. I would vote for the military aid Ukraine needs to defend itself, including air defense, ammunition, precision weapons, intelligence support, and training, along with humanitarian and economic assistance. I would also support tougher sanctions on Russia and efforts to make Moscow bear more of the cost of the destruction it has caused. There should be strong congressional oversight, but we cannot allow oversight to become an excuse for abandoning Ukraine. Putin is counting on America losing its nerve. We should prove him wrong.

- How should the U.S. approach its relationship with Israel?

The United States needs to reset its relationship with Israel. The devastation and genocide in Gaza demand an end to U.S. weapons and funding. Our policy should be grounded in human rights, accountability, and a durable political settlement that guarantees Palestinian self-determination and lasting security for both peoples.

- What path would you like to see the United States chart in regards to international trade relations? What role should Congress play in setting trade policy?

America’s trade policy should work for workers, not Wall Street and multinational corporations. For decades, too many trade deals have made it easier for companies to ship jobs overseas, suppress wages, weaken unions, and exploit workers abroad while communities here at home paid the price. I support trade agreements with enforceable labor, environmental, and human-rights standards, strong Buy American rules, aggressive action against outsourcing and tax avoidance, and major investment in domestic manufacturing, clean energy, semiconductors, and other critical industries. I also support targeted action against China and other countries when they engage in unfair trade practices, but I oppose across-the-board tariffs that simply raise prices on families. Congress should reclaim its constitutional authority over trade, require votes on major trade agreements and broad tariffs, and stop giving presidents blank-check power over economic policy. Trade should raise wages, strengthen unions, rebuild American industry, and make sure the benefits of globalization flow to working families instead of concentrating at the top.

- Where do you believe the United States should seek cooperation with countries that are also strategic competitors, such as China, and where should it draw firm lines?

We should compete with China where our interests and values demand it, but competition cannot become a new Cold War. The United States should seek cooperation on climate change, pandemic preparedness, nuclear nonproliferation, global financial stability, and other problems that no country can solve alone. At the same time, we should draw firm lines against military coercion of Taiwan and our allies, theft of American technology, unfair trade practices, forced labor, and human-rights abuses. We should strengthen our alliances, rebuild domestic manufacturing and clean-energy capacity, and reduce dangerous supply-chain dependencies without treating the Chinese people as our enemy. The goal should be tough, clear-eyed competition with guardrails, not reckless escalation.

- What are your current views on immigration policy and enforcement in the United States? This includes legal and illegal immigration, refugee resettlement, and asylum programs.

I am the son of immigrants, and I know both how much immigration has strengthened this country and how broken our current system has become. I support dismantling ICE and separating immigration enforcement from customs enforcement. Immigration enforcement should be placed under the Department of Justice, governed by clear rules, due process, warrants, identifiable officers, and real accountability, including prosecution when federal agents violate the law. At the same time, I believe we need a secure and orderly border. Being progressive does not mean accepting chaos. We should invest in modern border security, immigration courts, legal processing capacity, and enough personnel to decide asylum claims quickly and fairly while focusing enforcement on genuine threats rather than terrorizing families and communities. We also need comprehensive immigration reform that creates an earned pathway to citizenship for long-term undocumented residents, protects Dreamers, expands lawful immigration, reunites families, and maintains a strong refugee and asylum system for people fleeing persecution. America can enforce its laws without abandoning its humanity.

- What role should the U.S. Congress play in shaping U.S. Foreign Policy and how much should it defer to the President and the U.S. Department of State?

Congress should be an equal partner in foreign policy, not a rubber stamp for the President. DC has failed for decades in this regard and needs to change. It should exercise its constitutional powers over war, funding, trade, treaties, and oversight, while giving the State Department room to conduct day-to-day diplomacy. Presidents need flexibility to respond to immediate threats, but no president should receive a blank check to wage war or remake American foreign policy without Congress.

- How do international events affect the lives of people in New Hampshire, and how would your foreign policy priorities benefit the state?

International events are not distant from New Hampshire. Wars and instability drive up energy and food costs, disrupt supply chains, threaten our businesses, and put New Hampshire service members and their families at risk. I serve in the New Hampshire Army National Guard, and these decisions are personal to me because the people who may be sent into harm’s way are my friends and colleagues, not abstractions on a policy memo. My foreign policy would put their welfare first by opposing unnecessary wars, requiring clear missions and congressional authorization, while strengthening diplomacy, alliances, and economic security so we prevent conflicts before Americans are asked to fight them. I would also work to reduce our dependence on unstable foreign energy markets, strengthen domestic manufacturing and supply chains, support New Hampshire exporters and small businesses, and make sure our foreign policy ultimately delivers something tangible at home: lower costs, greater security, and fewer unnecessary wars.