Issues

Nebraska farmers and ranchers don't need a scientist to tell them something is wrong. They see it in their fields, their water tables, and their insurance bills. In 2024 alone, extreme weather cost Nebraska $2 billion in damages. The question isn't whether our climate is changing — it's whether our leaders have the courage to do something about it instead of pretending the problem doesn't exist.

This Is an Agriculture Issue

Our agriculture sector is on the front lines. Rising temperatures and unpredictable precipitation affect crop yields and livestock health. More frequent droughts and extreme weather events are not abstractions — they are the difference between a profitable year and bankruptcy. Water levels in our reservoirs are falling. Flooding and drought are hitting Nebraska harder and more often. Farmers and ranchers in every county of this district know this.

This Is a Property Insurance Issue

Insurance companies aren't ideological — they follow the data. They see the increased risks of fire and severe weather and they raise premiums accordingly, or they pull out of markets entirely. When your property insurance doubles or disappears, that's not politics. That's your bottom line.

This Is a Fiscal Issue

The cost of disaster relief, emergency response, and infrastructure repair after extreme weather events gets added to our national debt — the same debt the politicians lecture us about while cutting taxes for billionaires. A true fiscal conservative addresses problems before they become catastrophes, not after.

What the Science Tells Us

Our planet keeps a journal by trapping air bubbles in glacial ice. Scientists can measure the levels of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere going back 650,000 years. For most of that time, CO2 levels hovered between 200 and 280 parts per million. In 1950, they went above 300 for the first time in recorded history. Today they're above 400 and rising faster every decade. As a former prosecutor, I evaluate evidence. The evidence is clear.

A Practical Path Forward

We can’t switch off fossil fuels tomorrow. Fossil fuels are a necessary bridge while we work toward cleaner energy — energy sources that don't poison our soils, pollute our waters, or cause cancer. But a bridge must lead somewhere. We need leaders who will invest in that transition honestly rather than pretending there's no river to cross.

The Bible says we are stewards of this Earth. Stewards don't hand future generations a disaster and call it freedom. Nebraska's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities deserve representatives who look at hard problems honestly and plan accordingly — not leaders who ignore them because it's politically convenient.

Protecting Democracy

“The Salvation of the State is the Watchfulness in the Citizen.” — Inscription on the Nebraska State Capitol Building

I served as an Air Force Judge Advocate, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. That experience reinforced that the rules must apply equally to everyone, regardless of rank. And regardless of wealth. Elections must be free and fair. Government must answer to the people — not to the highest bidder.

The Threat is Real

Recent statements and actions from President Trump raise serious concerns about his intent to interfere with or even cancel elections to benefit himself:

·       “When you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.” (Reuters interview, Jan. 2026)

·       “I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election, because the fake news would say, ‘He wants the elections canceled. He’s a dictator.’” (Speech to House Republicans, Jan. 6, 2026)

·       “I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS… and voting machines… by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections.” (Truth Social post, Aug. 2025)

His specific interference attempts include:

·       Announcing plans to ban mail-in voting and electronic voting machines via executive order.

·       Suggesting elections should be canceled or delayed, undermining public confidence in democratic processes.

·       Threatening federal involvement in election oversight, raising fears of voter intimidation.

Our representatives should speak out against these threats, not silently cower in a corner. We elected them to serve us, not a party or a president. They swore to uphold the Constitution – not pretend the emperor has no clothes.

Getting Big Money Out of Politics

Our democracy is in serious trouble. Citizens United opened the floodgates for corporations and billionaires to pour unlimited money into our elections. Wealthy interests form PACs to get around contribution limits, and the voices of ordinary Nebraskans get drowned out. In 2024, 100 billionaire families spent $2.6 billion on elections. That’s one out of six dollars spent by all candidates, parties, and committees. Not surprisingly, the 10 ten richest billionaires have seen their wealth soar by nearly $700 billion since Trump took office again.

The government has been quietly purchased by those with the deepest pockets — and until we change that, it will keep serving those who write the biggest checks, not the farmers, ranchers, and working families of Nebraska’s Third District.

We Need More Competition in Politics

A free market requires true competition, but the two parties work hard to exclude independents and third parties. Both parties appeal to extremists to raise money. There was a time when members of the two parties valued logic over loyalty, but that time has passed, and the two-party system is no longer working for Nebraskans or for Americans. Both parties have lost the trust of the American people. The percentage of voters who identify as independent is the highest ever.

The Language We Use

The two-party system forces voters onto a left-right spectrum, but real life is not two-dimensional, and that’s not how voters – especially younger voters – think. Both parties use simplistic labels to divide us and raise money from the extremes. You’re either “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” You’re either “conservative” or “liberal.” The media rewards this ridiculous black and white thinking because controversy gets ratings. We must stop using language that encourages tribalism.

Defending Voting Rights

The Supreme Court has made it systematically harder for the most vulnerable citizens to vote. That erodes trust in our government and our courts — and it is not accidental. Government only works when citizens believe their vote counts.

The SAVE Act is a solution in search of a problem. Every state already requires voters to certify their citizenship. Voting fraud is extremely rare — the evidence doesn’t justify this law. What it will do is disenfranchise women who changed their names after marriage and other citizens with documentation gaps. It’s a blatant attempt by Christian nationalists to disenfranchise women (who often change their name) and to disenfranchise others who are not wealthy, don’t travel, and therefore don’t have passports. I oppose it.

Fixing the House

There are several ways to make the House of Representatives work for better for Americans. These include:

• Introducing single subject bills

• Ending the use of continuing resolutions and omnibus bills

• Banning the trading of individual stocks by House members

• Term limits

Expanding the House of Representatives

Nebraska’s Third District covers eighty counties and borders six states. One representative cannot meaningfully serve 760,000 constituents — and that’s the situation every House member faces today, because Congress capped the House at 435 members in 1929 and never revisited it, even as our population tripled.

I am open to uncapping the House. More representatives means smaller districts, members who know their constituents, lower campaign costs, and less power for outside money. It makes gerrymandering harder, increases diversity in the legislature, and could bring the Electoral College closer in line with the popular will. That’s a conversation worth having.

Confronting Media Consolidation and Corporate Censorship

A handful of conglomerates now control most of what Americans read, watch, and hear. They are driving independent local papers — essential in rural communities like ours — out of business. The major networks look nearly identical: they profit from outrage and division, take corporate money for granted, and often repeat what the government tells them. We must enforce our antitrust laws and break up these concentrations of media power. Independent journalism matters, and must support it.

The censorship problem goes beyond consolidation. Search engines and social media platforms use algorithms to show us what they want us to see. And when our own government pressures the press or spreads disinformation, that’s not politics — that’s authoritarianism. Congress must hold the executive branch accountable. A politician who calls every critical story “fake news” is being cowardly, and it’s practically a confession that the story is true. Americans know that “alternative facts” are lies.

Electronic Voting Machines

I don’t fully trust electronic voting machines. Any system can be hacked, and too many reported results have seemed improbable. Every election should use paper ballots or a voter-verifiable paper audit trail. That’s the only way to give people genuine confidence that their votes are counted as cast.

Our Responsibility as Citizens

 We must be honest about our own role in this. We’ve let billionaires and their politicians distract us with trivia and divide us while they enrich themselves. As the saying goes: “Out of hatred for the cockroach, the ants voted for the insecticide. They all died, including the housefly that didn’t vote.”

I swore to defend the Constitution. That oath didn’t come with an expiration date. Protecting democracy is not something someone else does for us — it requires the watchful eye of every citizen.

Out of hatred for the cockroach, the ants voted for the insecticide, and they all died, including the housefly that didn’t vote. – African Proverb

We must stop letting the billionaires and the politicians they control manipulate us with simplistic labels and black and white thinking

The billionaires and the politicians they control attempt to dumb us down and divide us by using simplistic “blue/red” and “liberal/conservative” terminology. We’re smarter than that. Every state is purple. Some may be closer to maroon and others may be closer to violet. There are diverse views in each state, but we’re all Americans.

We engage in the same sloppy logic when we use “liberal” and “conservative.” A person can be “liberal” on some issues and “conservative” on others. Moreover, the meanings of those labels change over time. And using a single word to judge a person is simplistic. The man you judge because you label him a “conservative” may also be a father, a business owner, and a volunteer. The woman you judge because you label her a “liberal” may be a mother, a systems analysist, and an avid hunter. We must stop confusing the label with the person.

Americans are beginning to realize that government and the large corporations are two sides of the same coin

My experience is that those who call themselves “conservatives” fear the government a bit more than they fear the corporations, and those who call themselves “liberals” fear the corporations a bit more than they fear the government. But Americans are starting to realize that the government and the big corporations are essentially the same thing because our system allows giant corporations and billionaires to buy elections and legalizes bribery in the form of lobbying.

Let’s Fix Our System Instead of Fighting Each Other

The-two party system has failed us. Both parties pander to the extremes to raise money. Most voters are unhappy with the system. Some voted for Donald Trump even though they dislike him because they wanted to shake up “the system” or they didn’t trust Democrats to fix it. We must fix the system and stop fighting each other.

We can’t lose if we are united

There are about 340 million Americans and just a handful of billionaires. Of course, they want to divide us because they can’t win if we remain united. I’m encouraged that Americans on all sides of the spectrum are beginning to understand how the rich and powerful attempt to divide us.

Tariffs

This administration’s ill-conceived tariffs are hurting farmers, ranchers, and related industries. The cost of fertilizer and machinery is rising. The tariffs are causing other nations to impose retaliatory tariffs that reduce demand for U.S. agricultural products. This is why President Reagan opposed tariffs. He said, “The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for economic progress and peace among nations.”

The numbers confirm what Nebraska farmers already feel in their bones. According to Purdue University’s Ag Economy Barometer — a monthly survey of 400 agricultural producers nationwide — 46% of farmers now cite high input costs as their single biggest concern. One farmer recently told NBC News: “This is that perfect storm where everything comes together and hammers the farmer.” Fertilizer costs, diesel prices, and closed export markets are colliding at the same time. Small farm bankruptcies surged 46% in 2025 alone.

We Must Strengthen and Enforce Antitrust Laws

Those touting the unregulated free market forget that free market theory assumes strong competition. That’s the reason Republicans worked for antitrust laws more than one hundred years ago. We must strengthen and enforce our antitrust laws to make sure large agricultural corporations lack the market power to coerce or manipulate our farmers and ranchers. Your representative should work for you, not for Big Ag.

I will push to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act to change the “harm to competition” standard so a plaintiff does not have to prove harm to the entire industry. I will work to fund the USDA and the DOJ Antitrust Division, and to make them enforce the law. I will fight to mandate standardized packer contracts and USDA transparency reporting. And I will work to restore Biden-era rules on competition in the meatpacking industry.

As distressed family farms are bought up at fire-sale prices by corporate agribusinesses and Wall Street investors, the consolidation of American farmland is accelerating. This is not a free market — it’s a rigged one. The bottom 80% of American farmers received less than $5,000 each in recent federal farm aid, while agribusiness firms pocketed checks averaging $180,000. That is not a bailout for farmers. That is a bailout for Big Ag.

Immigration

Similarly, this administration’s “one size fits all” approach to immigration hurts many industries in Nebraska, including agriculture, construction, the hospitality industry, and elder care.

Rural Healthcare and Services

Rural Nebraska has already seen at least one hospital and several clinics close. The most recent budget bill (the Big Bag of gifts to Billionaires) harms rural healthcare, rural weather forecasts, and rural radio. In most rural areas the second largest employer (after agriculture) is the healthcare sector. And the third largest is often the school system. When our leaders cut funding for rural healthcare and other services, people leave the small towns and move to places where better healthcare and services are more readily available. When people move away from small towns, property values decrease and funding for schools drops. More people move away. I will work to preserve rural American and small town life. We can’t do that by cutting rural services and giving tax breaks to billionaires.

Rural Mental Health

The farm crisis isn’t just an economic crisis — it’s a mental health emergency. The suicide rate among American farmers is now 3.5 times that of the general population, and it hit a record high in 2025. Calls to the national Farm Aid hotline and the Iowa Concern hotline have surged four to five times compared to the same period last year. Established farmers with decades of experience are calling crisis lines because “the system that’s in place is simply letting them down.”

Farmers face a unique set of stressors: isolation, financial uncertainty, extreme weather, and cultural stigma around asking for help. Telehealth is not a viable option for some in rural Nebraska because cell and internet reception are limited. Driving long distances to see a counselor is impractical during planting and harvest season. Rural communities need mental health resources brought to them — not the other way around.

I will fight to preserve and expand rural mental health funding. I will oppose any budget that cuts mental health services for rural communities while handing tax breaks to billionaires.

Right to Repair

I support right to repair legislation that requires agricultural equipment manufacturers to provide owners and independent repair shops with the necessary parts, software, tools, and documentation to diagnose, maintain, and repair equipment. This allows farmers to fix their own machinery or choose independent mechanics rather than being forced to rely exclusively on authorized dealers. While some politicians claim such proposals would interfere with free markets, there can be no “free market” when there is little competition among manufacturers and when the equipment owners lack bargaining power. That’s why the Republican party worked for antitrust laws more than one hundred years ago.

The average price of a new tractor has nearly doubled since 2019 — from roughly $190,000 to over $330,000 today. Farmers cannot afford new equipment, and they should not be forced to buy it just because manufacturers lock out independent repair.

Global Warming

Ignoring global warming will ultimately harm farmers and ranchers. Extreme weather impacts our water supply, our ecosystems, the cost of insurance, and many other factors relevant to farming and ranching. We need leaders who will assess these issues realistically rather than ignore them. You don’t solve problems by running from them.

I had to evacuate my home in Lemoyne in March because of a fire that burned more than 700,000 acres. A few weeks later, while visiting ag and labor leaders in Lincoln, it was 97 degrees. 97 degrees in Lincoln, Nebraska in March! Global warming is real.

My Experience in Agricultural Law

I practiced law in Omaha during the farm crisis of the late 1980’s. I saw emotional pain farmers suffered when forced to file bankruptcy. Later, I earned an advanced degree in agricultural law. I know how laws impact farmers, ranchers, and agricultural industries. There has not been a new farm bill since 2018. I will work to fix that. We are headed for another farm crisis, and rural Nebraskans need a representative who works for them — not for a political party or a party boss.

As Your Representative I Will:

•        Push to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act to change the “harm to competition” standard so a plaintiff does not have to prove harm to the entire industry

•        Work to fund the USDA and the DOJ Antitrust Division, and to make them enforce the law

•        Fight to mandate standardized packer contracts and USDA transparency reporting

•        Work to restore Biden-era rules on competition in the meatpacking industry

•        Push for campaign finance reform and to overturn Citizens United

•        Work for a new farm bill (there has not been a new one since 2018)

•        Fight to preserve and expand rural mental health funding and oppose cuts to rural health services

•        Support right to repair legislation so farmers can fix their own equipment

 In short, I will represent Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers, not Big Ag.

Under the Great Plains — including most of Nebraska's Third District — lies the Ogallala Aquifer – one of the largest underground freshwater reserves in the world. It irrigates about 30 percent of all groundwater-irrigated farmland in the United States. It makes possible billions of dollars of agricultural production every year in Nebraska.

We are draining it faster than nature can refill it. In some parts of the aquifer, water levels have dropped more than 150 feet since large-scale irrigation began. If we do not address this problem seriously and soon, we are not talking about an inconvenience for future generations – we are talking about the end of irrigated agriculture as we know it across a significant portion of the Great Plains.

This Is Not a Distant Problem

Some Nebraskans take comfort in the fact that the aquifer is deeper and more robust in Nebraska than in other states. This leads to complacency. The aquifer does not respect state borders. What happens in Kansas and Colorado affects Nebraska. And the rate of depletion in parts of southwestern Nebraska is already a serious concern.

Global warming compounds the problem. Hotter temperatures increase evaporation and crop water demand. Less precipitation means less recharge.

The Federal Role

Water rights are primarily a state matter, and Nebraska has worked hard through its Natural Resources Districts to manage groundwater. I respect that. The federal government should not trample on state water management systems that are working.

But the federal government has an important role to play. Interstate water compacts –agreements between states sharing the same water resources — often require federal involvement to negotiate, fund, and enforce. The Republican River Compact between Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado is one example. These agreements are complex, contentious, and essential. Nebraska needs a representative in Congress who understands them and will fight for Nebraska's interests.

The federal government also funds research and provides technical assistance through agencies like the Bureau of Reclamation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the United States Geological Survey. That research – on aquifer depletion rates, on water-efficient irrigation technologies, on drought forecasting – is essential for the long-term health of Nebraska agriculture. Cutting those agencies to give tax breaks to billionaires is not fiscal conservatism. It is trading our grandchildren's water for today's political points.

Conservation and Efficiency

The most cost-effective way to extend the life of the Ogallala Aquifer is to more efficient water use. Modern irrigation technology – drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, precision application systems – can dramatically reduce water use per acre without reducing yields. Many Nebraska farmers have already adopted these technologies. Federal cost-share programs through the Natural Resources Conservation Service help others do the same.

These programs work. They are good investments. And they are among the programs that get cut when politicians decide to balance the budget by slashing conservation funding while protecting tax breaks for corporations. I will fight to protect and expand conservation funding that helps Nebraska farmers use water more efficiently.

Water and Rural Communities

The Ogallala Aquifer does not just support agriculture. It supports communities. Rural towns across the Third District depend on groundwater for their drinking water supply. As the aquifer drops, some smaller communities face real threats to their municipal water supplies. This is not a hypothetical future problem in some areas – it is happening now.

Federal rural water programs help small communities develop and maintain reliable water supplies. Like rural housing programs, they are often underfunded and bureaucratically complex. We need to make them work better, not cut them.

What I Will Do

•        Protect and increase federal funding for Ogallala Aquifer research, monitoring, and conservation programs.

•        Fight for Nebraska's interests in interstate water compact negotiations and enforcement.

•        Support federal cost-share programs that help farmers adopt water-efficient irrigation technology.

•        Oppose cuts to the Bureau of Reclamation, NRCS, and USGS that provide the research and technical assistance rural Nebraska depends on.

•        Support rural water infrastructure programs that help small communities maintain reliable water supplies.

•        Treat water security as the agricultural and economic security issue it is – not as an environmental abstraction.

I earned an advanced degree in agricultural law (LL.M.) and spent years working with farmers and ranchers. I understand that water is not just a resource – it is the foundation of rural Nebraska's way of life. Every acre of corn, every head of cattle, every family farm in this district depends on it. I will treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

You can't have an honest conversation about the economy without talking about taxes. And you can't talk honestly about taxes without acknowledging that for the past forty years, most of the benefits of our tax policy have gone to the people who needed them least.

The Deficit Is Not an Abstraction

Adrian Smith and his colleagues in Congress just added four trillion dollars to the national debt and called it conservative. It is not conservative. George H.W. Bush — a Republican — called supply-side tax policy 'voodoo economics' back in 1980. He was right then, and the evidence since has proven him right repeatedly. You cannot cut taxes for billionaires and large corporations and balance the budget at the same time. The math doesn't work. Every Nebraskan who has ever run a farm, a business, or a household knows that.

What Real Fiscal Conservatism Looks Like

In the 1950s, under President Eisenhower — a Republican — we had a progressive tax system with higher rates on the highest incomes and higher corporate taxes. With that revenue, we built the interstate highway system. A family with one wage earner could afford a car and a home. Corporate taxes were structured to incentivize reinvestment in new ventures and job creation rather than stock buybacks and executive bonuses.

We must go back to a tax structure more like that. We must have an honest conversation about who is actually paying for the services we depend on — and who is getting a free ride. When the billionaires don't pay their fair share, the rest of us make up the difference through higher property taxes, reduced services, and debt passed to our children.

Property Tax Relief Starts in Washington

If the federal government required large corporations and the very wealthy to pay closer to their historical share, we could fund grants to state and local governments — which would directly reduce property taxes. For rural Nebraska landowners, that's not a political theory. That's real money.

Antitrust and the Free Market

I believe in regulated capitalism. Free market theory assumes competition — no single buyer or seller has enough power to control prices. That may have been true in 1776. It has not been true since the rise of the railroads and the oil companies, which is why Republicans worked for antitrust laws more than a hundred years ago. We must strengthen and enforce those laws. When four companies control most of the beef processing in this country, there is no free market for Nebraska ranchers. There is a take-it-or-leave-it market. That's not freedom — that's coercion with a business license.

We must stop measuring prosperity by how well the stock market is doing and start measuring it by how well people in greater Nebraska are doing.

The national debt is now over $36 trillion. Every American's share of that debt — including every child born in Nebraska today — is over $100,000. Politicians from both parties created this problem. Politicians from both parties are making it worse. And both parties are lying to you about how to fix it.

I will tell you the truth, even though the truth is not popular in an election year.

Both Parties Are Responsible

Democrats have sometimes spent too freely without finding a way to pay for it. But the loudest voices for deficit reduction in Washington today are the same people who just voted to add trillions of dollars to the debt by cutting taxes on billionaires and giant corporations. They claim to be fiscal conservatives while running up debt faster than those they criticize. That is not fiscal conservatism, its hypocrisy.

Real fiscal conservatism means what it says. It means living within your means. It means not borrowing from your grandchildren to give tax breaks to people who already have more money than they can spend. George H.W. Bush called supply-side economics "voodoo economics" — and he was right. Tax cuts for the wealthy do not pay for themselves. The evidence is overwhelming, and has been for forty years.

You Cannot Cut Your Way to a Balanced Budget

Some politicians tell you we can balance the budget by cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse." None of them have done it, because waste, fraud, and abuse — while real — do not come close to explaining a deficit that runs over a trillion dollars a year.

Others propose cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those programs represent about 45 percent of federal spending. If you want to balance the budget purely through spending cuts, you either cut those programs severely or you do not come close to balancing the budget. When politicians tell you they will balance the budget without touching Social Security, Medicare, defense, or interest on the debt, ask them to show you the math. They can't.

Trying to balance the budget by cutting services while giving tax breaks to the wealthy is like trying to fill a bathtub while someone keeps pulling out the drain plug. You can work as hard as you want; you will not fill the tub.

The Revenue Side of the Equation

In 1953, the top marginal income tax rate was 92 percent — under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. During the Eisenhower years, we built the interstate highway system, a family with one income could afford a house and a car, and we sometimes ran budget surpluses. Corporate taxes were higher too, which motivated companies to invest their profits in new ventures and new jobs rather than stock buybacks.

We should return to a tax structure more like the one that had bipartisan support under President Eisenhower. America functioned well, grew rapidly, and reduced its post-World War II debt under a tax structure that asked the most of those with the most. The idea that you cannot ask wealthy people and corporations to pay more without destroying the economy is a scare tactic and is not supported by history.

Corporations also find elaborate ways to shift profits offshore to avoid American taxes. When corporations pay lower effective tax rates than the nurses and teachers of Nebraska, the system is broken. Closing those loopholes is not class warfare. It is basic fairness, and it would raise significant revenue.

Defense Spending and Accountability

The United States spends more on defense than the next ten countries combined. I support a strong military — our economic stability and security depend on it. But I also believe Congress has a responsibility to ensure that money is actually spent on defense, not funneled to private contractors through systems designed to avoid congressional oversight and public accountability.

The Pentagon has failed its audit five years running. That means we genuinely do not know where trillions of dollars went. Any family that managed its finances the way the Pentagon manages its budget would be broke. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over the purse and demand real accountability.

What This Means for Rural Nebraska

The federal debt is not just an abstract number. It drives up interest rates, which makes it harder for farmers to finance equipment and operating costs. It crowds out federal investment in rural infrastructure, broadband, healthcare, and education. And when the debt eventually forces painful choices — as it will — rural communities that depend on federal programs will feel the cuts most acutely.

Nebraska’s farmers are fiscally responsible people. They manage budgets, plan for uncertainty, and do not spend money they don't have. They deserve a representative in Congress who applies the same discipline to the federal budget that they apply to their own operations.

What I Will Do

•        Oppose tax cuts that add to the deficit without corresponding spending reductions or revenue increases elsewhere.

•        Support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and on corporations that use offshore strategies to avoid their fair share.

•        Oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as a budget-balancing tool.

•        Support full Pentagon financial audits and real accountability for defense contractors.

•        Call out politicians from either party who claim to care about the deficit while voting to increase it.

•        Support a budget process that is honest about tradeoffs rather than one that hides them behind accounting gimmicks and deadline extensions.

There is no painless way to address the national debt. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying to you or has not thought it through. The question is not whether we will eventually have to make hard choices — we will. The question is whether those choices will fall on the people who caused the problem or on the people who can least afford to bear them. I know where I stand on that question.

Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers don't just feed Nebraska. They feed the world. And that means trade policy is farm policy. Every decision Congress makes about tariffs, trade agreements, and export markets lands directly in the pockets of the people who grow our food.

Ronald Reagan said it best: "The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for economic progress and peace among nations." This administration claims Reagan's mantle while doing the opposite of what Reagan believed. That is not conservatism. That is opportunism.

Tariffs Are Decimating Nebraska’s Agricultural Sector

The ill-conceived tariffs are decimating Nebraska’s agricultural sector. Tariffs caused a 52% drop in Nebraska soy sales to China. There has been a 66% collapse in beef exports to China — with no beef exports to China at all in April, May, or June 2025.

Tariffs Are a Tax on Nebraska

A tariff is a tax. When this administration imposes tariffs on imported goods, American companies and consumers pay that tax — not foreign governments. When we impose tariffs on steel and aluminum, farmers pay more for equipment and infrastructure. When we impose tariffs on Chinese goods, China retaliates with tariffs on American agricultural products. Nebraska corn, soybeans, beef, and pork lose market share they may never fully recover.

China was one of the largest buyers of American agricultural products. American farmers built their business models around that market. When trade wars close that market, the damage to farms and rural communities is immediate and severe. We have seen this before. The trade disruptions of 2018 and 2019 cost American farmers an estimated $27 billion. The federal government made up some of that loss through bailout payments — paid for by taxpayers — but that is no substitute for stable, open markets.

There is also a long-term damage that bailout payments cannot fix: trust. When American farmers prove to be unreliable suppliers because political decisions can cut off exports overnight, foreign buyers look for other sources. Once they find them and build relationships with them, it is hard to win that business back.

The Costs Don't Stop at the Farm Gate

Tariffs raise the cost of fertilizer, fuel, steel, machinery parts, and building materials. For an industry that already operates on thin margins, those cost increases are not an inconvenience — they are a threat to survival. A farmer who cannot afford to repair equipment or pay for inputs does not plant. A farmer who cannot sell at a price that covers costs does not stay in farming.

Small rural businesses also feel the impact. Implement dealers, co-ops, feed stores, and rural banks are all connected to the health of the farm economy. When farm income drops, so does spending in every small town across the Third District.

What Good Trade Policy Looks Like

I believe in free and fair trade. Those two words matter. "Free" means open markets, low barriers, and the ability to sell American products wherever there is demand. "Fair" means our trading partners play by the same rules we do — no dumping products below cost, no government subsidies that distort competition, no theft of American intellectual property.

We have legitimate grievances with China's trade practices. But the way to address those grievances is through strong multilateral agreements, through the World Trade Organization, and through coordinated pressure from our allies — not through unilateral tariff wars that hurt Nebraska farmers and let China simply redirect its purchases to Brazil and Argentina.

Trade Agreements Must Protect Agriculture

Not all trade agreements are good for agriculture. Negotiators sometimes trade away agricultural market access to benefit other industries. As your representative, I will scrutinize every trade agreement specifically for its impact on Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers. I will oppose any trade deal that sacrifices agricultural market access to benefit industries that have more lobbyists in Washington.

I earned an advanced degree in agricultural law and spent much of my legal career working with farmers and ranchers. I understand how these agreements work and what the fine print means. Nebraskans deserves a representative who reads the fine print.

Country of Origin Labeling

Nebraska produces some of the finest beef in the world. Consumers deserve to know where their beef comes from. I support restoring mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for beef and pork, but I am mindful of the costs of compliance. Congress eliminated those requirements in 2015 under pressure from meatpacking companies. Restoring COOL would let Nebraska ranchers compete on quality and give consumers the information they deserve.

This is not protectionism. This is transparency. If you have a quality product — and Nebraska ranchers do — you should want people to know where it comes from.

Tariffs Have Not Created Manufacturing Jobs

The President said tariffs would bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, but that has not happened. Payrolls in the manufacturing sector shrunk by roughly 72,000 positions between the start of the tariffs and December of 2025.

What I Will Do

•        Oppose unilateral tariffs that harm Nebraska's agricultural export markets without achieving concrete, measurable results.

•        Support expanding free and fair trade agreements that open markets for Nebraska corn, soybeans, beef, pork, and other commodities.

•        Scrutinize every trade deal for its specific impact on Nebraska agriculture before casting a vote.

•        Support restoring mandatory Country of Origin Labeling for beef and pork.

•        Work with allies to address China's unfair trade practices through coordinated multilateral pressure rather than unilateral tariff wars that backfire on American farmers.

•        Fight for stable, predictable trade policy so Nebraska farmers can plan for the future without worrying that a presidential tweet will close their markets overnight.

Nebraska's agricultural economy does not need charity. It does not need bailout checks to make up for self-inflicted trade wounds. It needs a representative who understands that open markets built this district's economy and that protecting those markets is protecting Nebraska.

America is the only advanced nation that does not provide healthcare to its citizens. Instead, we have a system where insurance and pharmaceutical companies make huge profits from illness and suffering while MBA’s make healthcare decisions instead of doctors. Why? Because insurance and pharmaceutical companies donate to both parties, and both parties depend on big money.

I Support Some Form of Healthcare For All Americans

I had publicly funded medicine in the Air Force, and it worked just fine. (In fact, the Air Force could discipline airman who failed to seek appropriate care because one unhealthy airman endangers the health of other airman and endangers the mission).

America is the richest nation in the history of planet Earth, but millions of our fellow citizens are dying from treatable illnesses and rationing insulin. How can a nation call itself “great” if a citizen must create a GoFundMe campaign for chemotherapy?

We can afford to care for all Americans, but our leaders must decide it’s more important to take care of American citizens than to cut taxes for billionaires. It’s the right thing to do. If every American had access to healthcare, we might start to feel like we’re all in it together – like we care about each other and we really are one nation.

The Big  Bag of Gifts To Billionaires Hurts Rural Healthcare

The so-called Big Beautiful Bill (really the Big Bag of Gifts to Billionaires) hits rural healthcare hard. At least one hospital and several clinics in rural Nebraska have closed in the past few years. (Not counting the Tilden Community Hospital that closed in 2014). It’s going to get worse. Many hospitals and clinics are downgrading their status because this administration decided to cut $1 trillion from Medicaid to fund tax cuts for billionaires. The rural healthcare sector is often one of the largest employers in rural communities. When people lack access to healthcare, they move to places where access to healthcare is easier.

The administration’s supporters claim the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP), created by the same bill, is the answer to rural hospital closures — but that’s a shell game. While Congress cut an estimated $137 billion in Medicaid funding to rural areas over ten years, the RHTP offers only $50 billion spread over five years to offset those losses. But Nebraska would get only $218 million of that, and only if jumps through the federal hoops.

Worse, the law itself explicitly prohibits RHTP funds from being used to replace Medicaid dollars or to directly stabilize struggling rural hospitals. In other words, Congress talked about saving rural hospitals, then wrote a law that prevents the money from doing exactly that. This is no accident. It reflects the same hostility to Medicaid — the backbone of rural healthcare — that has driven efforts to gut the Affordable Care Act for years. Rural Nebraskans deserve honesty: the RHTP is not a lifeline. It is a con.

The Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act has been a huge success. Health insurance marketplace enrollment exceeded 24 million for 2025, an all-time high, and 44 million people were enrolled in the ACA marketplace or Medicaid expansion coverage in 2024. The law has strengthened health insurance benefits by providing greater coverage and eliminating denials for pre-existing conditions. Enhanced premium tax credits that help reduce the cost of coverage are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts. This means health insurance premiums will increase by an average of 114%. All so billionaires pay less in taxes.

Facility Fees: The Hidden Tax on Rural Healthcare

You go to what looks like a doctor's office, see a doctor, and then get two bills. The second one — sometimes hundreds of dollars — comes from the hospital that owns the building. They call it a facility fee, and nobody told you about the fee or that insurance doesn’t cover it.

Hospitals have charged facility fees for decades, but the problem is growing as hospitals buy up clinics and physician practices across rural Nebraska. When a hospital acquires a doctor's office and reclassifies it as an outpatient department, patients pay hospital-level fees for the same visit they've always had in the same building. These fees impact everyone.

Congress has sat on its hands while other states have passed laws to protect patients. Nebraska has done nothing. Meanwhile, the $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts Congress just approved to fund tax cuts for the wealthy are pushing financially stressed rural hospitals to lean even harder on facility fees.

As your representative, I will push for federal laws that require upfront disclosure of facility fees, ban facility fees at off-campus clinics that function like ordinary doctor's offices, and protect Medicare and Medicaid patients from bills they never saw coming. You deserve to know what your care will cost before you receive it.

As Your Representative I Will:

·       Work to restore Medicaid funding

·       Oppose tax cuts for the wealthy that harm healthcare and rural communities

·       Support the Affordable Care Act

·       Fight for strict regulation of insurance companies

·       Always support preventative care

"You've never been a law enforcement officer, so you should leave these issues to the professionals."

I addressed that kind of logic on my law enforcement page: the same people who say that, mostly men, have never been pregnant, but some of them have no problem legislating women's health decisions. So let me be straightforward about where I stand on issues that affect women in Nebraska.

Equal Pay

Women in Nebraska earn roughly 80 cents for every dollar a man earns for the same work. That's not a "women's issue" - that's a math problem and an economic problem. When women are underpaid, families are underpaid. When families are underpaid, rural communities suffer. I will support legislation that closes the pay gap, strengthens enforcement of equal pay laws, and requires transparency in compensation so that workers know if they're being shortchanged.

Women in the Workforce

Rural Nebraska depends on women. They run farms, staff our hospitals and clinics, teach our children, and operate small businesses. When we cut rural healthcare, we eliminate jobs that are disproportionately held by women. When we cut the Department of Education, we cut funding for schools where women make up the majority of teachers. The politicians telling you they support women are often the same ones voting to eliminate the programs women rely on. I will call that out.

Paid Family Leave

America is one of the few advanced nations on Earth that does not guarantee paid family leave. That is an embarrassment. A mother who just gave birth — or the father, for that matter — should not have to choose between caring for a newborn and keeping a job. A woman caring for an ailing parent should not face financial ruin for doing the right thing. This is not a "liberal" position. It's a common-sense position. Paid family leave stabilizes families, reduces employee turnover, and strengthens rural communities. I support it.

Childcare

Affordable childcare is an economic issue, not a gender issue — though women bear a disproportionate share of its burden. In rural Nebraska, affordable childcare options are scarce. When a mother can't find or afford childcare, she often can't work. When she can't work, her family loses income and the rural economy loses a productive member of the workforce. We must invest in childcare infrastructure in rural communities the same way we invest in roads and bridges. One without the other leaves us stranded.

Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault

I prosecuted domestic violence cases for seven years. Rural Nebraska has a domestic violence problem that doesn't get enough attention. Geographic isolation, limited law enforcement resources, and a culture of silence make it harder for rural women to get help. The nearest shelter may be hours away. The nearest victim advocate may be stretched thin across a dozen counties. Federal programs that fund rural domestic violence services, legal aid, and survivor support must be funded and protected — not cut to give tax breaks to billionaires. I will fight for those programs.

Women's Health

I've addressed abortion separately on this site. But women's health is much broader than that one issue. Maternal mortality rates in rural America are higher than in urban areas, and they are rising. Rural women face greater difficulty accessing OB/GYN care, cancer screenings, mental health services, and preventative care. Hospital closures in rural Nebraska have made this worse. A woman in Arthur County should have the same access to healthcare as a woman in Omaha. That requires funding rural healthcare, not gutting it.

Women in the Military

I served in the Air Force, and I am proud of the women I served alongside. I have said it before and I will say it again: in my experience, military leaders don't care about a servicemember's gender — they want the best person for the job. This administration's attempts to relegate women to inferior roles in the military is an insult to every woman who has served and sacrificed for this country. I oppose it.

Stop Using Women as a Political Football

The politicians who claim to stand for women are often the same ones cutting funding for rural healthcare, opposing paid family leave, and dismantling programs that support working families — all while waving around one or two emotionally charged issues to distract us. I know misdirection when I see it. I teach it in my karate class.

Women in Nebraska's Third District are not a special interest group. They are half the population, half the workforce, and — if you'll pardon the expression — the people who raised the other half. I will represent them.

Abortion

There is a separate page on this website addressing this issue.

A rural community cannot grow without housing. A hospital that needs nurses, a school that needs teachers, a business that needs workers — none of them can attract people if there is no affordable housing. Housing is not a side issue for rural Nebraska. It is the foundation everything else sits on.

Across Nebraska's Third District, we face a housing crisis that most politicians in Washington have never heard of and wouldn't understand if they had. It is not the same crisis as in New York or San Francisco. But it is just as real and just as damaging to our communities.

The Problem

In many of our small towns, the housing stock is old, deteriorating, and shrinking. Young people leave, houses sit vacant, and eventually they crumble or get torn down. The towns that want to grow — that have jobs to offer and services to provide — often cannot attract workers because there is no affordable housing.

At the same time, the cost of building new housing in rural areas is often not justified by the market value of the finished home. A contractor might spend $200,000 building a new home that appraises for $120,000. No private developer will take that deal. So, the housing does not get built, and the community stagnates.

This is not a failure of the free market — it is a feature of geography and demographics that the free market alone cannot solve. Small towns have faced this problem for generations. The difference now is that the consequences of doing nothing are accelerating as populations age and young people weigh their options.

The Ripple Effect

The housing shortage does not just hurt the people who cannot find homes. It hurts every person and every business in the community. Consider what happens when a rural hospital cannot fill a nursing position because the nurse cannot find a place to live. That hospital operates short-staffed. Services get cut. Eventually, the hospital closes. When the hospital closes, more people leave. When more people leave, the tax base shrinks. When the tax base shrinks, the school cuts programs. When the school cuts programs, young families with children don't move in. The downward spiral continues.

Agriculture also depends on affordable housing. Processing plants, co-ops, equipment dealers, and other agricultural businesses need workers. If those workers cannot find housing within a reasonable distance of their jobs, they don't take those jobs. Rural Nebraska cannot fully capitalize on its agricultural strengths if the communities surrounding those operations cannot house a workforce.

What the Federal Government Can Do

The federal government already has tools for rural housing — most of them underused, underfunded, or hamstrung by bureaucratic requirements that make no sense in a rural context. USDA's Rural Development programs, including the Section 502 loan program and the Section 515 rental housing program, have helped rural communities for decades. But funding has not kept pace with need, and the programs often move too slowly to help communities that are declining in real time.

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is the primary federal tool for building affordable housing, but it was designed with urban markets in mind. Rural projects struggle to compete for these credits because the financial math is harder in small markets. We need a rural set-aside within LIHTC specifically for communities under a certain population threshold, with simplified requirements that reflect rural realities.

We must also make it easier for rural communities to rehabilitate existing housing stock. In many of our small towns, there are vacant houses that could be brought back to life with the right financing and the right incentives. A targeted federal rehabilitation program — simple, fast, and designed for rural communities — would cost far less than building new and could revitalize blocks of housing that would otherwise disappear.

Employer-Assisted Housing

Some rural employers — hospitals, school districts, and large agricultural operations — have started building or financing housing for their workers because they have no other choice. The federal government should encourage and support this approach through tax incentives for employers who invest in workforce housing in rural communities.

This is not a new idea. During World War II, the federal government worked with private companies to house defense workers near production facilities. The principle is the same: when the private market cannot solve the problem alone, targeted public support can make the difference.

Cut the Red Tape

Many rural communities that want to address their housing problems run into federal rules and requirements designed for urban environments that don't translate well to small towns. Environmental reviews, appraisal requirements, and program eligibility rules sometimes make it easier to do nothing than to try to build something.

I will push to streamline federal housing programs for rural applicants — not to eliminate oversight, but to make sure the rules fit the circumstances. A community of 800 people applying for a housing rehabilitation grant should not have to navigate the same bureaucratic process as a city of 800,000.

What I Will Do

•        Fight to increase funding for USDA Rural Development housing programs and streamline their application processes for small communities.

•        Support a rural set-aside within the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program with simplified requirements for small markets.

•        Push for a targeted federal rural housing rehabilitation program to bring vacant and deteriorating homes back to productive use.

•        Support tax incentives for employers who build or finance workforce housing in rural communities.

•        Work to reduce bureaucratic barriers that make federal housing programs impractical for small rural communities.

•        Make the case in Washington that rural housing is good policy and a wise investment

Nebraska's small towns deserve a representative who understands that and will fight for them.

The labor movement arose to combat unsafe conditions, low pay, long hours, and to create a more level playing field for workers. Republican President William Howard Taft signed the act creating the Department of Labor in 1913. Yet too often our leaders ignored it, undermined it, or treated it as an afterthought.

While corporate greed, windfall profits, and repeated government bailouts have enriched the large corporations and billionaires, those in power have let the working class suffer. The income gap between the corporate titans and the average worker is widening. Corporations reward CEO’s with unfathomable bonuses for shipping jobs overseas to increase profits.

One concern is the classification of workers, particularly rideshare drivers, as independent contractors. This classification can limit their ability to organize into unions and access certain employee-based protections

Big business is also pushing to increase the legal threshold for suing companies after cybersecurity breaches, which could potentially protect businesses from lawsuits for not protecting employee data unless the employee can show willful misconduct or gross negligence.

The giant corporations also seek to change the public union system, which could affect thousands of Nebraska workers. There are proposals to reduce or even eliminate the right of public employees to negotiate. That’s not only bad for the workers, but it is also bad for public safety and bad for citizens who want responsive government services.

AI also threatens jobs. We must strengthen unions, protect collective bargaining rights, and ensure that every Nebraskan has access to fair wages, safe working conditions, and a secure retirement. A strong labor movement doesn’t just benefit union members — it raises the standard of living for all working families. When labor succeeds, our communities thrive. The big corporations and those who control them are trying to undermine and narrow laws that protect workers’ rights and that ensure public safety. We can’t let them succeed.

As Your Representative I Will:

• Oppose one-person train crews; require minimum two-person freight train crews

• Support stricter railroad safety regulations

• Support more robust paid sick leave for railroad workers

You paid into Social Security and Medicare your entire working life. That money is not a government handout. It is a promise America made to you — and both parties are now quietly trying to break it.

Let me be direct: I will not vote for any bill that cuts Social Security or Medicare benefits. Not to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Not for any reason.

The Threat Is Real

Politicians in Washington have been eyeing Social Security and Medicare for decades. They use words like "reform," "modernize," and "ensure long-term solvency" to disguise what they are proposing: cuts to your benefits. Don't let them fool you. When a politician says we need to "reform" Social Security, ask them to be specific. Ask them exactly which benefits they plan to cut and for whom.

The same people who tell you Social Security is going broke just voted to give trillions of dollars in tax cuts to billionaires and giant corporations. Social Security does not add to the deficit. Congress funds it separately through payroll taxes. It is not the problem. The problem is that some politicians want to raid that money to cover the tax cuts they handed to the people who fund their campaigns.

What This Means for Rural Nebraska

In Nebraska's Third District, Social Security and Medicare are not abstract policy debates. They are the financial foundation of our communities. Roughly one in five residents in our district is 65 or older. Social Security checks are a significant part of the local economy in every small town across this district. When those checks stop or shrink, local businesses feel it immediately.

Medicare matters here for another reason: rural hospitals. Rural hospitals operate on thin margins. Medicare reimbursements are often the difference between a hospital staying open and closing. We have already lost one hospital and several clinics in rural Nebraska. Cutting Medicare reimbursements will close more. When the hospital closes, people move. When people move, the schools shrink. When the schools shrink, more people move. We have seen this cycle before in rural Nebraska, and we cannot let it continue.

Farmers and ranchers are not exempt from this problem. Many rely on Medicare because they cannot afford private health insurance. Self-employed people in agriculture often lack access to employer-sponsored coverage. For them, Medicare is not a backup plan — it is the plan.

The Solution: Make the Wealthy Pay Their Share

Social Security's funding challenges are real but manageable – and we don’t have to cut benefits to solve them. Here is an example. Today, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to wages up to $176,100. If you earn $176,100 a year, you pay the full tax on every dollar you earn. If you earn $10 million a year, you stop paying the Social Security payroll tax after the first $176,100. A billionaire stops paying the Social Security payroll tax before most Nebraskans collect their first January paycheck.

Raising or eliminating that cap – so that the wealthy pay the same percentage on all their income that working Nebraskans pay – would fund Social Security well into the future without cutting benefits. And would benefit most people earning more than the current cap amount because they stand to lose more from benefit cuts than from higher taxes. Only the most wealthy would be worse off, but they are the ones with the most political influence, another reason we must get big money out of politics. It is not complicated. The only thing standing in the way is the political power of the people who benefit from the current system.

Protecting Medicare from Privatization

Some politicians want to convert Medicare into a "premium support" or voucher system. They sell it as giving seniors more "choice." What it really does is shift the financial risk from the government to you. Instead of Medicare paying your medical bills, you get a fixed check to buy private insurance. If your costs exceed the voucher amoun – and they will as you age — you pay the difference.

That is not reform. That is a gift to private insurance companies, paid for by taking money out of the pockets of Nebraska’s seniors. I will not support it.

Prescription Drug Costs

We pay the highest prescription drug prices in the developed world. Not because our drugs are better. Not because our system is more efficient. We pay more because the pharmaceutical industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress to prevent Medicare from negotiating drug prices the way the Veterans Administration does – the way every other major country does.

The Inflation Reduction Act took a small step in the right direction by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices on a limited number of drugs. I support expanding that authority significantly. If the VA can negotiate drug prices, Medicare can too. The only people who benefit from the current system are the pharmaceutical companies and the politicians they fund.

Our seniors skip doses and cut pills in half to stretch their prescriptions. That is not acceptable  in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.

What I Will Do

•        Vote against any bill that cuts Social Security or Medicare benefits, regardless of what it is called or how it is packaged.

•        Support lifting the payroll tax cap so the wealthy pay the same percentage as working Nebraskans, funding Social Security without benefit cuts.

•        Oppose any effort to privatize Medicare or convert it to a voucher system.

•        Support expanding Medicare's authority to negotiate prescription drug prices.

•        Fight to protect rural hospital Medicare reimbursement rates, which are a lifeline for rural communities.

•        Call out politicians from either party who use misleading language to disguise benefit cuts.

Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements in the pejorative sense some politicians use that word. They are obligations. You earned them. Nebraska's Third District has some of the hardest-working people in America. They deserve a representative who will stand up and tell the truth: we can afford to keep our promises to them. We choose not to keep those promises only when we let the billionaires buy the politicians who make the decisions.

I will keep the promise.

The Attacks on Iran

As a former Air Force JAG, I understand the law governing the use of military force. This administration is breaking that law.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to hostilities. The Constitution gives Congress — not the President — the power to declare war. That is not a technicality; it is a deliberate safeguard against any one person dragging our country into armed conflict.

When Secretary Hegseth dismisses what he calls "stupid rules of engagement," he does not show how tough he is; he shows ignorance and recklessness. The laws of armed conflict exist to protect our troops and innocent civilians alike.

Congress should ask: What is the plan? What is the objective? What does success look like? What commitments has this administration made on behalf of the American people without their knowledge? We sent young Americans into harm's way. They — and their families — deserve leaders who have answers to those questions before the shooting starts. The men and women doing that right now deserve better than this.

We Must Not Appease Dictators

Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave if he knew how America is appeasing Russia. We have gone from, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall,” to “Vlad, would you like me to fluff your pillow before you attack Ukraine?” How many times must we learn that unchecked aggression encourages more aggression? We should do all we can to help Ukraine and protect our allies. Our economic system depends on trade with our allies and a stable international climate. Instead of appeasing those who threaten us and our allies, we must let them know in no uncertain terms that America can strike hard and fast if necessary. And not just with traditional military force, but in other ways.

Facing New Threats

While this administration attempts to look tough by sending National Guard units to Portland and ordering our warships to blow tiny boats out of the water based on questionable evidence, America should be preparing for potential Russian EMP or cyberattacks. Our power grid is outdated and highly susceptible to cyberattacks, EMPs, and physical threats, which could have disastrous consequences. However, for reasons unknown, this administration suspended offensive cyber operations against Russia, raising concerns about vulnerability to cyber threats from Moscow.

Meanwhile, China's naval buildup has been rapid and extensive. China's navy recently surpassed the U.S. Navy in terms of the total number of naval vessels, with plans to increase its battle force to 400 ships by 2025 and 440 by 2030. This expansion is part of a broader modernization effort that has been ongoing since the 1990s, focusing on advanced naval technologies, including modern surface warships, submarines, and aircraft carriers.

Every person that played baseball or softball as a child has been told, “Keep your eye on the ball.” Congress must do more to ensure America is focused on real threats, not pretend enemies.

The Department of Defense

Congress approved changing the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense as part of the National Security Act of 1947. Congress did this to reflect the broader role of our military in the post-World War II era, emphasizing defense and deterrence. Our leaders intended it to project a more peaceful image to the world, emphasizing America’s commitment to preventing conflicts rather than engaging in them.

This administration’s executive order requiring government officials to refer to the Department of Defense as the “Department of War” without congressional approval is another example of its disregard for the law. And it’s another example of politicians using political theater to distract us from the tax cuts they are giving to billionaires while they adopt policies that hurt Nebraska’s agricultural industries and the rural way of life.

Those Who Benefit From Our Defense Spending Must Help Pay For It

America spends a lot on defense, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we spent too much. I’m concerned about reports that the Pentagon can’t account for trillions of dollars, but American military power is what has helped maintain economic stability since the end of World War II. It’s why we benefit from open shipping lanes and uninterrupted supply lines. The real issue is that we do not require the corporations and billionaires that benefit from this stability to help pay for it. We must drastically revise our corporate tax structure so that those who benefit most from our military help pay for the security it provides.

As for the missing trillions, it’s beyond doubt that much of that money went to projects being illegally hidden from Congress and was funneled to private contractors to avoid the Freedom of Information Act and congressional oversight. That must stop. Congress must assert its lawful authority.

Ending the Misuse of Our Military

Our military exists to defend this country from external threats. It does not exist to perform political theater, to intimidate domestic political opponents, or to enforce civil immigration law in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Using our servicemembers for those purposes is an insult to every person who put on a uniform.

Congress has both the authority and the duty to rein in executive branch misuse of the military. I will use that authority. The men and women who serve deserve a Congress that takes that responsibility seriously.

Culture Wars in the Military

I am proud that our military has often been ahead of the curve in offering opportunities to women and minorities. I worked with senior officers when I served in the Air Force. In most instances our military leaders don’t care about a servicemember’s gender, race, or sexuality – they want the best person for the job.

But in yet another attempt to distract us from things that matter, this administration insults the very values our military exists to protect by attacking diversity in the military, by attempting to erase history, by controlling what our servicemembers can read and do, by turning a blind eye to racism, by attempting to relegate women to inferior roles, and by providing military honor guards to people who never served for political reasons. I will work to stop that so our military represents and protects all Americans.

What I Will Do

·       Fight to make the United States stand up to Russia and punish Russia and other foreign actors for interfering in our elections.

 ·       Work to restore the damage the current administration as done to NATO.

 ·       Press to get to the bottom of the trillions of dollars the Pentagon can’t account for.

·       Make sure we are prepared to deal with 21st century threats.

 ·       Work to keep our alliances in the Pacific and in Asia strong, and to deter Chinese military and economic aggression.

 ·       Push for higher taxes on the super-rich and the large corporations such they pay their fair share of our military spending.

 ·       Push to investigate misuse of our military.

 ·       Speak out to end the culture war this administration employed to attack our servicemembers and veterans, to deprive minority servicemembers of the recognition they deserve, and to limit the access of our servicemembers to books.

I am a veteran. President Reagan commissioned me as an Air Force officer in 1983. I served as a Judge Advocate at Offutt Air Force Base for four years on active duty and three more years in the reserves. That was during the Cold War, and I am grateful I never saw combat. But, when I talk about veterans, I am not speaking in generalities. I am speaking as one of them.

I am tired of politicians who wrap themselves in the flag, call themselves patriots, and then propose cutting veterans' benefits or sit silently while this administration uses our military for political theater. Patriotism is not a bumper sticker. It is a commitment. And that commitment runs both ways.

Rural Veterans Face Unique Challenges

Nebraska's Third District has a higher percentage of veterans per capita than most of the country. Rural veterans face challenges that urban veterans do not. VA hospitals and clinics are concentrated in cities. A veteran in the Sandhills may drive three or four hours each way to see a VA specialist. That is not a minor inconvenience — for an elderly or disabled veteran, it can mean simply going without care.

The VA Community Care Program, which allows veterans to see local providers when VA care is not reasonably accessible, is a step in the right direction. But reimbursement rates are sometimes too low to attract rural providers, and the administrative burden on both veterans and providers can be excessive. We need to make this program work better for rural Nebraska, not weaker.

Mental Health and Suicide Prevention

Twenty veterans die by suicide every day in this country. Let that number sink in. More veterans die by suicide each year than died in combat during the entire Afghanistan war. This is a national emergency, and it does not get nearly the attention it deserves.

Rural veterans face a particular disadvantage when it comes to mental health care. There are fewer providers, greater distances to travel, and in many rural communities a cultural reluctance to seek help. Seeking mental health care can still carry a stigma in communities where stoicism is a virtue. We need to meet veterans where they are — including through telehealth, peer support programs, and community-based outreach — rather than expecting them to navigate a system designed for a different world.

The PACT Act, signed in 2022, expanded VA health care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances including burn pits. It was a long-overdue step. But passing the law is only the first step. The VA must have adequate funding and staffing to deliver those benefits, and we must hold it accountable when it fails to do so.

Economic Security for Veterans

It is a national disgrace that 1.2 million veterans rely on SNAP — food assistance — to eat. These are men and women who served this country, who were willing to give their lives for it, and they cannot afford groceries. Any politician who claims to honor veterans while proposing to cut SNAP is telling you something important about whether their support for veterans is real or performative.

Veteran homelessness also remains a serious problem, particularly for Vietnam-era veterans who are now aging and face health challenges that strain their finances. The federal government has made real progress on veteran homelessness in recent years. We should not reverse that progress.

Veterans who want to start businesses or pursue education after service should find a federal government that helps them do so efficiently — not one that buries them in red tape. The GI Bill is one of the most successful programs in American history. We should honor that legacy by making sure today's veterans receive the same strong support that helped build the postwar middle class.

What I Will Do

·       Fight to fully fund the VA and hold it accountable for delivering care to veterans in rural areas.

·       Strengthen the VA Community Care Program so rural veterans can access quality care near their homes.

·       Expand telehealth and mental health services specifically for rural veterans.

·       Oppose any cuts to SNAP, housing assistance, or other programs that veterans depend on.

·       Support full implementation of the PACT Act with adequate VA funding and staffing.

·       Speak plainly when politicians wave the flag while voting against veterans — because that hypocrisy deserves to be called out.

·       Work to reinstate the ability of the VA to provide abortion counseling and care. The current administration, as parts of its culture war, directed the VA to stop providing such services in even in cases of rape or incest.

Nebraska's Third District sends a lot of young people into uniform. They come from our farms and our small towns. They serve with distinction. They come home — often to those same farms and small towns — and they deserve a representative who knows what service means and will fight for them with the same commitment they showed their country.

Elected officials should lead. Leaders set an example. Leaders listen. Leaders care. Leaders tell the truth.

When a sitting senator encourages one group of Americans to engage in violence against other Americans, that’s not leadership; that’s bullying.

• When an elected official votes in favor of a bill he or she opposes because they fear the consequences of doing what is right, that is not leadership; that is cowardice.

• When a leader bullies the press to hide the truth, that’s a crime against our Constitution.

• When a leader lies, that’s betrayal.

• When a president unnecessarily puts our troops in harm’s way to appear tough, the Congress has a duty to reign him in.

An elected representative represents every person in the district, not just those who supported his or her candidacy.

In 1983, President Reagan commissioned me as an Air Force officer. Whether you agreed with his policies or not, President Reagan was a leader. He handled the office with grace and dignity.

Education is not the enemy

In his 1969 hit song, Okie From Muskogee, Merle Haggard yearned for an America where “the kids still respect the college dean.” Today too many politicians demonize education and complain about the taxes needed to fund schools.

The movie, Animal House, features a statue inscribed with “Knowledge is good.” That was funny then, but in today’s America some apparently disagree. Knowledge is how we solve problems. Knowledge is how we cure illness. Knowledge leads to truth. Knowledge is necessary for a functioning democracy. Knowledge is why Congress established land grant institutions such as the University of Nebraska.

Nebraska faces a drastic teacher shortage and making our low paid teachers a target for political gain makes the problem worse. Teaching our children (the future voters and leaders) to read, write, and think is a good and necessary thing. Some of our leaders don’t want our young people to question authority or conventional wisdom. They forget that our founders were educated men who questioned authority.

To address this, Congress should offer federal student-loan forgiveness for teachers who commit to five years in rural districts, and establish a pay floor so starting teachers in NE-03 aren’t driven out of the profession by better-paying jobs across the state line.

America’s schools are losing ground because we give tax breaks to billionaires

American students once ranked near the top in many categories. That is no longer true because some of our leaders don’t value education and don’t want to fund it. Our failure to make education a priority is one reason American employers must often look overseas for employees with specialized skills or training.

Increasing taxes on billionaires and large corporations will facilitate grants to Land-Grant Institutions such as the University of Nebraska. Recent cuts at UNL hurt rural Nebraska by reducing local degree options, increasing the “brain drain,” and limiting research/expertise that is vital for agriculture and rural communities.

Rural schools need vocational and agricultural programs

In rural Nebraska, federal education policy sometimes feels disconnected from the unique challenges of small-town life. Federal funding should include funding for vocational training, agricultural education, and community engagement so we meet the needs of all rural students. We must also work to improve broadband access to ensure all students have reliable internet access.

I will fight to make sure we don’t use public funds for private schools

I believe we should use public funds only for public education. If people want their children to attend private schools, that’s their choice if they can afford it, but I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for it.

Charter schools and vouchers drain rural schools

 Nebraska voters rejected school vouchers at the ballot box in 2024 for good reason. Charter schools and voucher programs pull money out of public schools — the schools most rural Nebraska kids attend. Private schools don’t have to accept every student, don’t have to provide special education or transportation, and don’t answer to local voters. In a state where many districts are already running on thin margins, diverting public dollars to private schools means larger class sizes, fewer programs, and more pressure on property taxes. I oppose federal voucher schemes and any federal incentive that rewards states for privatizing K-12 education. I would not vote to use federal money to fund madrasas or any other form of religious school.

Making billionaires pay their fair share will reduce property taxes

If America restored the tax rates on billionaires and corporations that prevailed for most of the twentieth century, the federal government could fund grants to local schools. Those grants would reduce what local districts must raise from Nebraska property owners, easing property tax pressure on farmers, ranchers, and rural homeowners.

Rural Nebraska Needs the Department of Education

In their never-ending efforts to cut taxes for billionaires some politicians try to sell easy solutions such as eliminating the Department of Education. In rural Nebraska, where local tax bases are often small due to limited land values, federal funds from the department are essential for hiring teachers, purchasing classroom technology, and providing supplemental instructional services. The department also administers programs like the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), which is specifically designed to help rural districts overcome the financial challenges associated with their geographic isolation and small student populations. These funds help rural schools compete for qualified teachers and offer a curriculum comparable to their wealthier, urban counterparts. Grants, aid, and credits from the Department of Education also help reduce property taxes.

Eliminating the Department of Education would have severe negative consequences for rural schools, and would likely force school consolidations, leading to longer bus rides for children, the closure of schools that are often the heart of small towns, and the loss of extracurricular programs that are vital for student engagement.

Student Loans

Congress singled out students by making student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. A person who qualifies can discharge medical debt or credit card debt in bankruptcy, but not a student loan. I would reform the bankruptcy code to treat student loans just like any other debt.

Education is good for democracy

“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both.”

- James Madison

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

- Thomas Jefferson

“Virtually all of us as Americans trace our ancestry back to immigrants from distant lands, men and women who came to America with a firm willingness to work, asking only freedom.”                                                                                     – Ronald Reagan

Rural Nebraska’s reliance on immigrant labor is profound

Many farms and ranches depend on seasonal workers to plant, harvest, and maintain their crops. The beef and meatpacking industries – critical pieces of Nebraska's economy – rely heavily on immigrant workers, most of whom came to America legally and just overstayed their visas. Immigrants also help care for our parents and grandparents in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.

This administration’s  “one size fits all” immigration policies hurt rural Nebraskans

This administration’s “one size fits all” immigration policies, such as increased ICE raids and the tightening of visa programs, have created a shortage of available workers, causing significant disruptions for industries including agriculture, construction, hospitality, and elder care. Farmers and ranchers find it increasingly difficult to hire local workers willing to take on these demanding jobs, leading to crop losses and reduced productivity. Additional verification requirements for employers increase their costs with little tangible benefit.

Scapegoating a class of people is what authoritarians do to distract us from their corruption

President Reagan signed bipartisan immigration reform almost forty years ago. Congress was close to a bipartisan agreement on border security in 2024 until then candidate Trump killed that deal by threatening members of his party with primary challenges. (They all caved).  Rather than work to solve the problem this administration scapegoats immigrants (and others) to distract Americans from the tax cuts it gives billionaires while it simultaneously destroys rural healthcare. (By the way, immigrants pay about $400 billion in income and payroll taxes each year).

“When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.”

                               - Leviticus 19:33-34

Immigrants are not the enemy

The deportation of long-term immigrant residents leaves many families in turmoil, affecting not just the individuals but entire communities. In rural areas where community ties are strong, the forced removal of a family member can create a ripple effect, impacting local businesses and social structures. The economic stability of rural communities is closely tied to the presence and contributions of immigrant workers, and this administration’s ill-conceived policies have threatened this balance.

In addition to the harmful impacts on rural areas that these “one size fits all” policies bring, children of deported parents suffer emotional and psychological trauma, and the loss of a parent can have long-lasting economic consequences for the family. This is not the Nebraska way.  

We must work for sensible immigration reform that recognizes that immigrants are critical to Nebraska’s agricultural and other industries. Immigrants are not our enemy.

Detention Centers Are For-Profit Concentration Camps

They call them “detention centers,” but to detain someone implies they are being held for a short time – not indefinitely. So, let’s call them what they are – for profit concentration camps. If the  purpose of these facilities is to temporarily to detain illegal immigrants for a short time, why do we need long-term facilities? America has survived for 250 years without for-profit concentration camps. The truth is these facilities are just another scheme for this administration’s billionaire friends to make even more money on the suffering of others. It’s not far fetched to worry about the day when an administration like the current one attempts to put any citizen who disagrees with its politics into one of these so-called detention centers. That’s one reason I am a gun owner.

As Your Representative I Will:

• Push to cut ICE funding to Biden-era levels

• Oppose detention of suspected illegal immigrants without Due Process

• Support federal legislation codifying the right to record law enforcement if it does not unreasonably interfere

• Fight to make it illegal for officers to hide faces/badge numbers except in narrow circumstances or with a court order

I believe there is a constitutional right to privacy implicit in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. In the Internet age it is virtually impossible to protect your privacy. You can’t use an app unless you agree to the corporate owner’s terms and conditions. The corporations know far more about you than you think. And AI is making the problem worse. China already uses technology for its “Social Credit Citizen.” There’s a reason Elon Musk wanted access to government records about us. And it wasn’t for our benefit. We are barreling toward an America where we have no privacy, and the government and the corporations know everything about us. We must stand up for ourselves or we will lose our freedom. The people telling you to fear the “Deep State” are the “Deep State.”

‍I support responsible gun rights

I lived in a mountain town for more than twenty years. Bears and mountain lions were common, and all sorts of unsavory characters squatted in the nearby national forests. The nearest sheriff’s deputy might be more than an hour away assuming the roads were open. Guns were not a political issue. People in big cities and their representatives should stop trying to impose their views on people in rural areas.

There’s no such thing as “gun control”

‍There is no such thing as “gun control.” That’s another simplistic term coined by an interest group to raise money and dumb us down. There is only gun legislation and proposed gun legislation. When you eliminate the simplistic labels, you can intelligently discuss specifics. You can discuss whether a proposal is necessary, whether it would be effective, what it would cost, whether it could be enforced, and whether it would unreasonably interfere with a citizen’s Second Amendment rights.

‍This administration’s policies are changing how many people view the guns issue

‍For years those who label themselves “conservative” claimed one reason they needed firearms was to protect themselves from government. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Because of this administration’s contempt for the rule of law, pardoning of felons, militarization of law enforcement, violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, march toward a global surveillance state, and attacks on Americans who dare to express opposing views, the fastest growing segments of gun purchasers are women, minorities, gays, and people who label themselves “moderate” or “liberal.” It’s understandable. Take the time to read this article:

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/11/nx-s1-5611025/why-more-liberals-are-buying-guns

This administration has the worst record on gun rights in recent history

This administration, which claims to support gun rights, is attacking gun rights on several fronts. It tried to declare that trans people are mentally ill and therefore cannot legally possess firearms. To its credit the NRA publicly opposed this.

After years of scaring gun owners with claims that the federal government was building a national gun registry, this administration attempted to do precisely that through the backdoor. In the case of Reese v. ATF, Pam Bondi’s Justice Department convinced a federal judge to order several gun rights groups to produce a verified list of their members. Gun Owners of America slammed this move and wrote, “This is just another illegal, unconstitutional registry of gun owners in the making.”

More recently, federal agents shot a nurse who was lawfully carrying a firearm in a holster in Minneapolis.

Do you support legalizing and regulating marijuana for adults?

Yes. As a prosecutor and as a municipal judge I’ve seen no evidence that marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol. Few things disturb me more than someone who claims to believe in freedom trying to regulate what someone else does. With respect to Sen. Ricketts, marijuana won’t kill your children; what is more likely to kill your children is lack of health insurance and the stress of knowing they will have to commit to a 50-year mortgage to buy a home.

Let’s ask better questions

• Why is alcohol legal and marijuana illegal?”

• Why are antidepressants legal and psychedelics illegal?

If you guessed the answers have something to do with campaign donations from the big distilleries and pharmaceutical companies, you’re right.

An even better question would be, “What is it about our society that causes people to want to consume mind altering substances?”  We need leaders that ask those questions.

But do people sometimes die from drug overdoses?

People sometimes die because of drunk drivers, but we don’t ban alcohol. People sometimes die in car accidents, but we don’t ban cars. People sometimes die in plane crashes, but we don’t ban airplanes. What legislators should do is objectively consider the evidence and find consensus on common sense solutions to balance many competing interests, including a citizen’s right to liberty.

I Titled this Page Birth Control for a reason.

Abortion is one procedure that falls under the broader topic of family planning birth control.  I support families, not governments.

A few Nebraskans oppose ALL forms of birth control, but not many, usually based on their understanding of scripture. And they’re entitled to their opinion, but they’re not entitled to impose their religious views on others. That’s what regimes do in Iran and Afghanistan. They call it Sharia Law.

Sen. Barry Goldwater once said, “I’m frankly sick and tired of these political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D… I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.”

They Are Lying to You About Roe v. Wade

Many believe Roe v. Wade allowed abortion on demand, but that’s wrong. That decision divided a pregnancy into three trimesters, with the government’s ability to regulate abortion increasing as a pregnancy progressed.

Many legislators are ignorant on reproduction and fetal development, which is mind-boggling as some are livestock ranchers. The Supreme Court wisely recognized that fetal development is a complex process during which a pregnant person’s life and reproductive health might be threatened, and that the government should not interfere with a woman’s relationship with her doctor in those circumstances. I know a woman who faced death from a partial molar pregnancy, but the local hospital, while her death was imminent, didn’t want to perform an abortion. She had to retain a lawyer to get the hospital to perform the procedure and save her life.

I believe there is a constitutional right to privacy and that the Supreme Court properly decided the issue.

Let’s Stop Using Simplistic Labels Intended to Divide Us

Those who call themselves “pro-life” invented that phrase for political gain. Nobody wants to be against life. Those who call themselves “pro-choice” invented that phrase for political gain. Nobody wants to be against choice. But that’s a false dilemma. Most Americans believe Roe v. Wade struck a proper balance between competing concerns.

I won’t answer questions that use simplistic terms such as “pro-life” or “pro-choice” because such language attempts to dumb us down by presenting only two alternatives. If you want to know my views on an issue, ask me. But don’t ask a question that assumes all Americans fall into one of two camps. We must change the way we think before we can intelligently discuss any issue.

Where I Stand

Healthcare is a deeply personal matter, and it is an area where government should stay away from except when necessary to protect the health of our nation. Some states have outlawed medical procedures or drugs which treat conditions such as endometriosis and miscarriage, only because the treatment could be used for abortions. Without such treatments, women’s health and future pregnancies can be compromised.

Let’s Stop the Hypocrisy

I sometimes hear law enforcement officers say, ““You’ve never been a law enforcement officer, so you should leave these issues to the professionals.” I’ve never been a law enforcement officer, but I have been a prosecutor and I have carried a concealed weapon to protect myself and my family. The same people spouting this chop logic, mostly men, have never been pregnant, but some of them have no problem opining on women’s health issues. I’ve never been a pilot, but I’m pretty sure it’s a good idea to require aircraft to have navigation lights.

The reality is that many women seeking elective abortions already have children and can’t afford the expenses of pregnancy, loss of job income, childcare, etc. Many of the same legislators who call themselves “pro-life” and claim to support “family values” adamantly oppose affordable medical care, free contraception, and sex education - the very things most likely to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

What it’s often about is imposing their puritanical sexual morality on women with different values. That’s not consistent with “freedom” or “limited government.” If they were truly “pro-life” and in favor of “family values,” they would work for a living wage, affordable healthcare, childcare, and family leave. For many it’s about punishing a woman for having sex. Simple as that.

Strong Men Support Women

It’s time for men to stand up and to speak out and to protect their wives, sisters, and mothers from ill-conceived laws that can cause injuries or death. We must resolve that The Handmaid’s Tale does not happen on our watch.

Adrian Smith’s War on Women Adrian Smith has represented NE-03 for nearly two decades. Here is his record on women’s health:

• He voted against the Right to Contraception Act. In 2022, Congress considered a bill that protected access to FDA-approved birth control. Smith voted no. Not against abortion — against contraception. Contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies. He’s not “pro-life” – he’s against women making their own decisions about their sexuality.

• He is an original cosponsor of the Life at Conception Act. This bill would grant 14th Amendment constitutional personhood to a fertilized egg from the moment of conception. Legal scholars say this would threaten not just abortion access but common forms of birth control and IVF.

• He voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Through the 2025 reconciliation bill, Smith voted to strip Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood — which for most patients means losing access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and annual exams. Not abortion services.

• He voted to cut Medicaid. That same reconciliation bill could cause up to 55,000 Nebraskans to lose health coverage — coverage that low-income women depend on for prenatal care, maternal health, and reproductive healthcare.

Smith calls himself “pro-life.” But he opposes contraception, opposes healthcare access, and opposes the economic supports — living wages, childcare, family leave — that help families thrive. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-control.

I oppose all those positions. Women in Nebraska deserve a representative who trusts them to make their own decisions.

His Primary Challenger is No Different

Adrian Smith’s primary challenger is no different. David Huebner is a former border patrol agent – not a gynecologist. His website says, “Fight. Fight. Fight!" and states, "David will strongly support the Trump administration…” He promises to "harness the current national conservative momentum" — framing his mission as advancing Trump's  agenda. This is an unambiguous commitment to be a Trump loyalist in 

Gay Rights

 I lived many of my adult years in a small town. Gay people live in our county. They farm,  pay taxes, serve in the military, and attend church. They always have.

My view on this comes from a principle I've held my whole life: if you believe in freedom, you mind your own business when someone else's choices aren't harming you. As Hank Williams wrote, 'If you mind your own business, you won't be minding mine.' I've never understood why some people who claim to believe in freedom only want it for themselves.

The law should allow gay couples to enter the same legal relationships the law allows anyone else to enter. America has survived bigger changes.

Trans Issues

The percentage of Americans who identify as transgender women is extremely small, and the percentage of those trans women who compete in sports is miniscule. Some politicians use this issue to distract you from the tax breaks they're handing to billionaires and their refusal to investigate pedophiles. I won't play that game.

But I'll be straight with you on two specific issues because you deserve straight answers.

On Sports:

My oldest daughter played college soccer on a scholarship. I know what it takes for a girl to earn her place on a team — the years of practice, the competition, the sacrifice. Research by sports governing bodies around the world, including World Athletics and World Aquatics, has found that male puberty produces physical advantages in muscle mass, bone density, and explosive power that hormone therapy does not fully reverse. In a sport like volleyball — where Nebraska families pack gyms every Friday night — that matters.

I believe girls deserve to compete on a level playing field. Local and state governments should have the authority to address this in women's sports, and I will support their right to do so in Congress.

On Bathrooms:

I'll be honest — I'm far more concerned about whether America is prepared for a Russian electromagnetic pulse attack on our power grid than I am about who uses which restroom. The solution is simple: build single-occupancy bathrooms in public buildings. Problem solved. We could put one in every public school in America for about $1.4 billion — less than what Congress routinely adds to a single defense bill without blinking. That’s a fraction of the $40 billion this administration arrange to provide to Argentinian ranchers. Let's stop using this issue to frighten people and focus on the real problems facing people in greater Nebraska.

During his 2024 the President said he was open to releasing the Epstein files. After the election, his Justice Department suddenly concluded no further disclosure was warranted. What are they hiding? President Kennedy said, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts..."

Rep. Smith refused to support a bipartisan discharge petition in September of 2025 that would have forced an immediate vote on a bill to release all files within thirty days. He changed his position in November of 2025 after the President gave his allies in Congress the green light to vote for the release of the Epstein files. It remains to be seen whether the Attorney General will fully comply with the law.

As a former prosecutor, I believe protecting children is more important than protecting politicians. We should prosecute child predators regardless of their party affiliation.

The founders included a judiciary in the Constitution for a reason. The judiciary was designed to play a vital role in interpreting the law, maintaining the separation of powers, and safeguarding the Constitution. But today too many politicians want to pretend Article III of our Constitution doesn’t exist. Unhappy when the courts do their jobs, they long for a system of government with only one or two branches rather than three as the founders intended.

It concerns Nebraskans when politicians who claim to believe in our Constitution simultaneously demonize judges and ignore court orders. It concerns Nebraskans when leaders pick and choose which constitutional provisions they support and which ones they want to pretend don’t exist. I support ALL the amendments, not just the ones a political party tells me to support.

If you think the rule of law is the enemy, imagine America without a judicial system. An America where masked government thugs could break into your home at night and imprison you indefinitely without a trial. An America where the government could punish you for what you say or believe. An America where you have no redress if someone harms you. Our legal system is not perfect, but the alternative is anarchy.

When is the last time you heard a legislator say, “I like that bill, but I can’t vote for it because it’s unconstitutional?” Instead, they vote for the bills their party leaders tell them to vote for and if the courts rule a bill they voted for is unconstitutional, they label the judges “activist judges” like a child who pouts when a parent says, “No.”

I’ve served as a military prosecutor, a federal prosecutor, and a local prosecutor, and I’m tired of politicians making unsupported attacks on career prosecutors – men and women who have devoted their lives to justice. Politicians who make baseless claims that opponents have “weaponized the judicial system” or that investigations into politicians on their side are “politically motivated” while simultaneously encouraging use of the criminal justice system to silence and punish opponents. I’m tired of the attacks, and I will call out politicians from either party that engage in such conduct. 

Congress must require greater judicial transparency

Our federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court and our federal appellate courts, operate with a troubling lack of transparency that undermines public trust. They make decisions behind closed doors. This breeds suspicion and erodes the legitimacy of the judiciary. We can solve this problem by enacting these reforms:

1. Congress should mandate the recording and public streaming of all federal court proceedings, including oral arguments and sentencing hearings, with exceptions only for narrowly defined national security needs or to protect the safety of specific witnesses

2. All internal correspondence between each justice / judge and each other justice / judge and his or her clerks pertaining to a matter should be available to the public after a decision is announced.

3. All federal judicial opinions, including memoranda orders and unpublished decisions that carry binding legal weight, must be made immediately and freely available in a centralized, searchable public database.

4. Congress must reform the process for judicial discipline to include public access to all complaints, hearings, and findings, ensuring that judges are not above the very laws they interpret.

Congress Must Impose a Code of Ethics on the Supreme Court

Regarding the Supreme Court, the lack of trust is compounded by the lack of any binding code of conduct. Congress must enact a binding, enforceable code of conduct for the Supreme Court, complete with clear rules on financial disclosures, gift acceptance, and recusal standards. This code should not be a mere suggestion but a requirement, with violations investigated and adjudicated by an independent body, perhaps a panel of lower-court judges, to avoid the absurdity of justices policing themselves. There should be potential criminal penalties for willful violations of the code of conduct.

Congress should no longer allow each justice to decide whether to recuse himself or herself. A justice should be required to recuse themselves not just when they have a direct financial stake in a case, but when there is a significant appearance of bias, such as close personal relationships with parties involved in a case or a history of public advocacy on the matter at hand. A formal mechanism, perhaps allowing the other eight justices to vote on a recusal motion, could provide a check against a single justice's poor judgment or desire to participate in a decision on a matter where recusal is clearly appropriate.

“We’re getting help, but it doesn’t include people who yell ‘spy’ every time they hear a foreign accent; racists, white or black; and, it lets out people think lawful protest is unconstitutional… I wear a badge, not a swastika.”

                   - Sgt. Joe Friday in a 1969

Dragnet episode explaining why the LAPD doesn’t want help from a right-wing militia

Do you back the blue?

One reason I left the Democratic party is the party’s inability to control the “defund the police” nonsense. But this “back the blue” phrase is a false dilemma concocted by interest groups to dumb us down and prevent intelligent discussion of issues. As a military, federal, and local prosecutor, and as a municipal judge, I have worked with hundreds of law enforcement officers. My cousin was a police officer for thirty years. One of my karate pals was a deputy who shot and killed a fleeing suspect, then took his own life shortly thereafter. Another friend was our town marshal; he was the only officer that ever paid me to provide legal help to a suspect he had arrested. Another officer drove his motorcycle to our home in snowy conditions when our young daughter had a febrile seizure. There are plenty of terrific law enforcement officers doing their best to serve and protect under difficult circumstances. Are they always right? No. Does the difficulty of their job give them a license to break the law or violate the rights of others? No. Most of them will tell you that.

The federal government must do more to help meet the needs of rural law enforcement agencies and small town departments

Rural law enforcement agencies in Nebraska face significant resource and budgetary challenges. These agencies often have jurisdiction over large geographic areas and little manpower. They need federal funding to hire and train additional officers. Cuts to federal grants have also impacted technical assistance and wellness programs specifically for rural departments. You can’t have tax cuts for billionaires without weakening rural law enforcement. Rural law enforcement needs more federal money, not less, but we must ensure that money is used to make communities safer rather than to infringe on the constitutional rights of citizens.

This administration’s “one size fits all” immigration policies hurt rural law enforcement

The administration's policies are pushing local departments to take on federal priorities, particularly immigration enforcement, without adequate funding. Deputizing local patrol officers as immigration agents strains local budgets by increasing coordination, training, and infrastructure costs. This pulls resources away from the primary mission of community safety. This also undermines community trust because illegal immigrants are a reality in rural Nebraska, and local law enforcement officials need their cooperation in criminal investigations.

The dangers of AI for rural law enforcement

While AI can be useful for law enforcement agencies, it also presents challenges. One reason people choose to live in rural areas is that they value their privacy. They trust the human officers that they often know. AI can feel intrusive and reduce that trust. Mistakes caused by improper use of AI can also destroy that trust. Rural Nebraskans want real law enforcement officers, not surveillance cameras and robots. And make no mistake, the billionaires would like nothing more than to reduce the human factor in policing so they can profit from their high-tech systems and the data those systems collect.

We can’t sacrifice freedom for safety, and we must protect the rights of citizens

While law enforcement officers have a difficult job, we can’t sacrifice freedom in the name of safety. That’s not what America is about. As a representative I will work for these specific changes:

• Legislation that makes it illegal for a law enforcement officer to conceal their face or badge number without a court order or in specifically defined narrow circumstances.

• Legislation that makes it illegal for a law enforcement office to scan a person’s face using facial recognition technology without a warrant or informed consent.

• Legislation that ensures the right of all Americans to record law enforcement activities if it does not clearly impair the ability of an officer to do their job.

“You’ve never been a law enforcement officer, so you should leave these issues to the professionals”

I’ve never been a law enforcement officer, but I have been a prosecutor and I have carried a concealed weapon to protect myself and my family. The same people spouting this nonsense, mostly men, have never been pregnant, but some of them have no problem opining on women’s health issues. I’ve never been a pilot, but I’m pretty sure it’s a good idea to require aircraft to have navigation lights.

The use of presidential pardons has sometimes been suspect during many recent administrations, but this administration’s abuse of presidential pardons is unparalleled. This president even pardoned defendants convicted by of violent crimes against police officers by judges he appointed.

Because the Constitution grants the president power to pardon people convicted of federal crimes, there is little Congress can do short of a Constitutional amendment. However, Congress can encourage state-level charges for related crimes and even provide funds for such prosecutions. The Constitution does not allow a president to pardon defendants convicted of crimes in state courts.

I support a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to overturn presidential pardons. That is the best way to prevent a president from abusing the pardon power.

In 1962 the House and Senate passed the Vaccination Assistance Act of 1962 with such overwhelming support that both chambers passed it with a voice vote. The Act provided funding to help vaccinate Americans against polio, diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus. The legislation passed with broad support because members of both parties knew that any disease than can spread threatens all Americans.

I believe in the science and effectiveness of vaccines, which have saved countless lives and are one of our most important tools for protecting public health. Vaccines have eliminated or drastically reduced diseases such as smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough. I was vaccinated as a child and received just about every vaccine imaginable in the Air Force. I encourage my family and neighbors to do the same to safeguard our communities, especially our most vulnerable.

That said, I understand that not all vaccines are the same, and it is therefore a mistake to treat vaccines as an “all or nothing” issue. I believe a person has a right to choose not to be vaccinated, but that right ends when that decision presents a significant risk to another. That’s why the military requires vaccinations for servicemembers. The mission is too important to risk the loss of a team member of health reasons.

I will focus on ensuring access to accurate information and making vaccines readily available while opposing any government overreach that forces medical decisions on citizens without a demonstrable benefit. We can promote public health without sacrificing individual liberty.

Finally, I believe we should listen carefully to medical professionals on these issues. As a trial lawyer, I can tell you that anyone can find an “expert” to say anything for the right price. But when there is overwhelming scientific consensus on an issue, it’s best to pay attention.

Reliable broadband internet is no longer a luxury. It is the same kind of basic infrastructure as electricity and telephone service. A farm family without broadband, a rural business without broadband, a student without broadband — they all operate at a serious and growing disadvantage compared to their urban counterparts. And in Nebraska's Third District, far too many people still lack it.

We solved a similar problem before. In the 1930s, private utilities refused to extend electrical service to rural areas because the economics didn't pencil out. Rural communities were left in the dark — literally. The federal government stepped in with the Rural Electrification Act. It worked. Today, we face the same problem with broadband, and the solution requires the same kind of will.

The Gap Is Real and It Is Large

Federal and state data on broadband availability have historically overstated coverage in rural areas because providers reported a census block as "served" if even one location in that block had access. A census block in rural Nebraska can cover hundreds of square miles. The FCC has improved its mapping methodology, but many rural Nebraskans already know from daily experience what no map needs to tell them: their internet is slow, unreliable, or nonexistent.

The federal government has committed significant money to rural broadband through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, including over $42 billion through the BEAD program. How that money gets deployed — and whether it actually reaches the farms and small towns that need it most — will depend heavily on state implementation decisions and federal oversight. Nebraska must hold providers accountable for delivering what they promise, and Congress must ensure that accountability is real.

What Broadband Makes Possible

The absence of broadband is not just an inconvenience. It is a multiplier of every other rural disadvantage. Without reliable internet, rural students cannot access online learning resources or compete with classmates in towns with better connectivity. Without broadband, rural hospitals and clinics cannot fully deploy telehealth services that could expand care options without requiring long drives. Without broadband, rural businesses cannot reach customers beyond their local area, cannot process transactions efficiently, and struggle to attract employees who expect to work from anywhere.

Modern precision agriculture — GPS-guided equipment, soil sensors, remote monitoring, market access — all depend on connectivity. The farmers of Nebraska's Third District are among the most innovative and efficient in the world. They should not be held back by infrastructure that lags decades behind what urban areas take for granted.

Broadband also matters for public safety. Emergency communications, law enforcement coordination, and weather alerts all work better with reliable connectivity. A region that already operates with thin law enforcement coverage and long emergency response times cannot afford the additional disadvantage of poor communications infrastructure.

Getting the Investment Right

Federal broadband investment has a mixed track record. Money has sometimes gone to areas that already had service, been tied up in administrative delays, or been awarded to providers who promised service they never delivered. We must do better.

I support prioritizing federal broadband funding for the most underserved areas — the places private providers will never go without public support. I support requiring real speed and reliability standards, not paper commitments. I support holding providers accountable with enforceable buildout requirements and clawback provisions for funds that are not spent as promised.

I also support exploring every technology that can serve rural areas cost-effectively, including fixed wireless, satellite, and fiber, without mandating a one-size-fits-all approach that may not make sense across the enormous geographic diversity of the Third District.

What I Will Do

•        Fight to ensure BEAD program funds and other federal broadband investments reach the most underserved rural areas in Nebraska — not just the easiest and cheapest to serve.

•        Support enforceable buildout requirements and accountability measures so providers cannot pocket federal money without delivering service.

•        Push for accurate broadband mapping so federal resources go where they are actually needed.

•        Support expanding telehealth access for rural Nebraskans as a direct beneficiary of improved broadband.

•        Treat rural broadband as the economic development issue it is — as critical to the future of rural Nebraska as rural electrification was to the twentieth century.

•        Call out providers who take federal money, promise service, and fail to deliver.

Rural Nebraskans don’t want a handout. They want the same infrastructure that the rest of the country already has. Every family farm, every rural school, every small business, every rural hospital in this district deserves to compete on a level playing field. Broadband is how we level it.

Mental health is one of the most serious and neglected crises in rural America. The numbers are stark: rural Americans die by suicide at rates significantly higher than urban Americans. The opioid epidemic has devastated communities across Nebraska's 3rd district. Farmers and ranchers face some of the highest rates of depression and suicide of any occupational group in the country. And yet rural mental health remains largely invisible in political conversation — because talking about it makes people uncomfortable, and discomfort doesn't raise money.

The Rural Mental Health Desert

Rural Nebraska faces a severe shortage of mental health providers. Many counties in the 3rd district have no psychiatrist and no licensed clinical psychologist. The nearest inpatient psychiatric facility may be hours away. Primary care physicians — already stretched thin — often end up as the default mental health providers for rural patients, without adequate training or support. When someone in a rural community reaches a mental health crisis, the response system that urban Americans take for granted simply doesn't exist.

This provider shortage is partly a result of economics — rural communities can't always support a full-time mental health practice — and partly a result of culture. Seeking mental health treatment has historically carried a stigma in rural communities where people are proud of their self-reliance, which makes it harder to build the patient base that would attract providers. But the stigma is changing, particularly among younger generations. We should meet that change with better services.

The Farm Stress Crisis

I practiced law in Omaha during the farm crisis of the late 1980s. I saw what financial devastation does to farmers and their families. The stress of farming is unique: it is not just a job — it is an identity, a family legacy, and a way of life. When a farmer loses his or her operation, he or she doesn't just lose income. They lose who they are. The combination of financial pressure, physical isolation, unpredictable weather, and the burden of carrying on a family tradition creates a level of stress that few other professions match.

This administration's tariffs, the ongoing absence of a new farm bill, rising input costs, and the threat of another farm crisis are not just economic issues — they are mental health issues. When we talk about supporting farmers and ranchers, mental health must be part of that conversation.

The Opioid Crisis Has Not Gone Away

The opioid epidemic hit rural communities especially hard. The pharmaceutical companies that flooded rural America with prescription opioids knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it anyway. The crisis they created has left communities across Nebraska's 3rd district with addiction, family disruption, child welfare crises, and overwhelmed local services. Treatment resources in rural areas are far too limited. Most rural Nebraskans who need addiction treatment cannot access it locally.

Addiction is not a moral failure — it is a medical condition. We should treat it that way. That means funding treatment programs, training primary care providers in addiction medicine, and ensuring that medication-assisted treatment is available in rural communities.

Veteran Mental Health

As I've noted under Veterans Affairs, an average of 22 veterans die by suicide every day in America. Rural veterans face compounded risk: they are isolated from services, they come from cultures that discourage asking for help, and they often carry the weight of combat experiences that most of their neighbors can't fully understand. Veteran mental health is a national emergency that demands national resources — not budget cuts.

Telehealth Is Part of the Answer

Telehealth — mental health services delivered by video or phone — can dramatically expand access in rural communities. A farmer who won't drive three hours to see a therapist might be willing to have a 30-minute video call. But telehealth requires broadband access (see Rural Broadband) and requires that providers be licensed to serve patients across state lines. Both of those barriers are solvable with the right federal policy.

What I Will Do

As your representative, I will:

•        Support increased federal funding for rural mental health services, including grants to recruit and retain mental health providers in underserved communities.

•        Push for federal support of farm stress programs, including hotlines, peer support networks, and integration of mental health services into agricultural extension programs.

•        Support telehealth expansion and interstate licensure compacts that allow mental health providers to serve rural patients across state lines.

•        Demand accountability from pharmaceutical companies for the opioid crisis they created, and support federal funding for rural addiction treatment programs.

•        Fight to protect and expand veteran mental health funding, including suicide prevention programs specifically designed for rural veterans.

•        Oppose any cuts to Medicaid that would reduce coverage for mental health services — in rural Nebraska, Medicaid is often the only coverage available for mental health treatment.

Hispanic Nebraskans work our farms and ranches, staff our meatpacking plants, care for our elderly in nursing homes, work in our hospitality industry, run small businesses, raise families, pay taxes, and serve in our military. In NE-03, roughly one in eight voters is Hispanic. Adrian Smith has represented this district for nearly two decades. He has not represented you.

The Economy and Agriculture

Hispanic workers are vital to Nebraska’s agricultural economy. The “one size fits all” immigration crackdown that Adrian Smith supports without question has disrupted the labor supply our farmers, ranchers, and businesses depend on. Crop losses, workforce shortages, and fear spreading through rural communities are the direct results of policies Smith rubber-stamped. A true fiscal conservative does not  destroy the labor market his own district relies on. I remember when a true conservative, Ronald Reagan, signed bipartisan immigration reform. I will push for a workable agricultural visa system that reflects the reality of how Nebraska’s economy— not one designed by politicians intent on making immigrants the boogey man to distract from their tax cuts for billionaires and refusal to go after pedophiles.

Family and Community

The mass deportation of long-term residents tears families apart. Children who are American citizens lose parents. Families who have been part of Nebraska communities for decades get uprooted overnight. Children wonder where their friends went. In rural areas, where community ties are deep and every family matters, the forced removal of a neighbor creates a ripple effect that impacts local businesses, churches, and schools. This is not the Nebraska way. It is cruel, economically destructive, and serves no legitimate law enforcement purpose. I will oppose it.

Healthcare

Rural healthcare is already in crisis, and Hispanic Nebraskans feel that crisis just like other Nebraskans. Many Hispanic families in this district are uninsured or underinsured. They rely on Medicaid and rural clinics for basic care — cancer screenings, prenatal care, treatment for chronic illness.

Adrian Smith voted for the bill that cut Medicaid funding and could cause up to 55,000 Nebraskans to lose health coverage. He did not push back. He did not demand protections for rural hospitals. He voted the way Mike Johnson told him to vote, and moved on. I will fight to protect and expand rural healthcare access for every Nebraskan, regardless of what they look like or where they were born.

Family Planning

Many Hispanic Nebraskans are Catholic, and I respect that. On the issues of birth control and family planning, my position is simple: these decisions belong to families, not to government. That is the definition of limited government — the same principle Sen. Barry Goldwater (a true conservative) defended when he said he was tired of political preachers telling Americans what it means to be moral.

Adrian Smith’s record tells a different story. In 2022, he voted against the Right to Contraception Act — a bill that did nothing more than protect access to FDA-approved birth control. He is an original cosponsor of the Life at Conception Act, which would grant constitutional personhood to a fertilized egg from the moment of conception — a position legal scholars say threatens not just abortion rights but common forms of contraception and IVF. He also voted to defund Planned Parenthood, stripping Medicaid coverage that paid not for abortions, but for birth control and cancer screenings for low-income women.

Many Hispanic families in this district depend on those services. Adrian Smith voted to take them away. I will not.

Dignity and Respect

Using Hispanic people as a political scapegoat — blaming them for crime, for economic anxiety, for anything that polls well — is a strategy, not a policy. It is dishonest. Every Nebraska family, regardless of where they were born or what language they speak at home, deserves a representative who fights for them rather than uses them.

AI Spanish Translation:

La Comunidad Hispana de Nebraska

Los nebraskenses hispanos trabajan en nuestras granjas y ranchos, en nuestras plantas de empaque de carne, cuidan a nuestros ancianos en hogares de retiro, laboran en nuestra industria hotelera, dirigen pequeños negocios, crían familias, pagan impuestos y sirven en nuestras fuerzas armadas. En NE-03, aproximadamente uno de cada ocho votantes es hispano. Adrian Smith ha representado a este distrito por casi dos décadas. Él no los ha representado a ustedes.

La Economía y la Agricultura

Los trabajadores hispanos son fundamentales para la economía agrícola de Nebraska. La política migratoria de "talla única" que Adrian Smith apoya sin cuestionamiento ha perturbado el suministro de mano de obra del que dependen nuestros agricultores, ganaderos y empresas. Las pérdidas de cosechas, la escasez de mano de obra y el miedo que se extiende por las comunidades rurales son consecuencias directas de las políticas que Smith avala sin reservas. Un verdadero conservador fiscal no destruye el mercado laboral del que depende su propio distrito. Recuerdo cuando un verdadero conservador, Ronald Reagan, firmó una reforma migratoria bipartidista. Impulsaré un sistema de visas agrícolas funcional que refleje la realidad de la economía de Nebraska, no uno diseñado por políticos empeñados en convertir a los inmigrantes en chivos expiatorios para distraer de sus recortes fiscales a los multimillonarios y su negativa a perseguir a los pedófilos.

Familia y Comunidad

La deportación masiva de residentes de largo plazo destruye familias. Los niños que son ciudadanos estadounidenses pierden a sus padres. Familias que han formado parte de las comunidades de Nebraska durante décadas son desarraigadas de la noche a la mañana. Los niños se preguntan adónde fueron sus amigos. En las áreas rurales, donde los lazos comunitarios son profundos y cada familia importa, la expulsión forzada de un vecino genera un efecto dominó que impacta los negocios locales, las iglesias y las escuelas. Esta no es la manera de Nebraska. Es cruel, económicamente destructiva y no tiene ningún propósito legítimo de seguridad pública. Me opondré a ella.

Atención Médica

La atención médica rural ya está en crisis, y los nebraskenses hispanos sienten esa crisis igual que los demás nebraskenses. Muchas familias hispanas en este distrito no tienen seguro médico o tienen cobertura insuficiente. Dependen de Medicaid y de clínicas rurales para la atención básica: detección de cáncer, atención prenatal y tratamiento de enfermedades crónicas.

Adrian Smith votó a favor del proyecto de ley que recortó el financiamiento de Medicaid y podría hacer que hasta 55,000 nebraskenses pierdan su cobertura médica. No se opuso. No exigió protecciones para los hospitales rurales. Votó como Mike Johnson le dijo que votara, y siguió adelante. Lucharé para proteger y ampliar el acceso a la atención médica rural para cada nebraskense, sin importar cómo se vean o dónde nacieron.

Planificación Familiar

Muchos nebraskenses hispanos son católicos, y yo respeto eso. En los temas de anticonceptivos y planificación familiar, mi posición es simple: estas decisiones pertenecen a las familias, no al gobierno. Esa es la definición de gobierno limitado, el mismo principio que el senador Barry Goldwater (un verdadero conservador) defendió cuando dijo que estaba cansado de predicadores políticos diciéndoles a los estadounidenses lo que significa ser moral.

El historial de Adrian Smith cuenta una historia diferente. En 2022, votó en contra de la Ley del Derecho a la Anticoncepción, un proyecto de ley que no hacía más que proteger el acceso a los anticonceptivos aprobados por la FDA. Es uno de los copatrocinadores originales de la Ley de Vida desde la Concepción, que otorgaría personalidad jurídica constitucional a un óvulo fecundado desde el momento de la concepción, una posición que los juristas afirman amenaza no solo el derecho al aborto, sino también las formas comunes de anticoncepción y la fecundación in vitro. También votó para eliminar el financiamiento de Planned Parenthood, suprimiendo la cobertura de Medicaid que pagaba no por abortos, sino por anticonceptivos y pruebas de detección de cáncer para mujeres de bajos ingresos.

Muchas familias hispanas en este distrito dependen de esos servicios. Adrian Smith votó para quitárselos. Yo no lo haré.

Dignidad y Respeto

Usar a las personas hispanas como chivos expiatorios políticos, culpándolas de la delincuencia, la ansiedad económica o cualquier cosa que funcione bien en las encuestas, es una estrategia, no una política. Es deshonesto. Cada familia de Nebraska, independientemente de dónde nació o qué idioma habla en casa, merece un representante que luche por ellas en lugar de usarlas.

The Middle East and Nebraska

Most people in Nebraska’s Third District weren’t losing sleep over the Middle East. They were worrying about fertilizer prices, the nearest hospital still open, and whether the next generation can afford to farm. Then this administration attacked Iran, and the Middle East arrived whether they wanted it or not.

It’s Already Costing Nebraska Farmers

Since the U.S. struck Iran on February 28th, oil prices have surged past $100 a barrel. Nebraska farmers are reporting fertilizer spikes of $150 per ton or more — weeks before planting season. Diesel costs are climbing. The Strait of Hormuz, which carries roughly a third of the world’s fertilizer trade, is effectively closed. This isn’t an abstract foreign policy debate. This is what it costs to run your combine this spring.

My Background Matters Here

I served as a JAG officer in the United States Air Force. I know the military, the law of armed conflict, and what it means to send Americans into harm’s way. That decision demands a clear legal basis, a clear objective, and a clear exit — not impulse. Congress holds the constitutional authority to declare war. The President does not.

The Ayatollah was a brutal tyrant, and few people mourn him. But a congressman who rubber-stamps presidential action — without pressing hard on legal authority, strategy, and cost to Nebraska families — isn’t doing his job.

Where I Stand on Israel

I support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. The October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks were acts of barbarism — no nation absorbs that and does nothing. Iran has long backed Hamas and other terrorist organizations, threatening regional stability and American interests.

Even so, American interests and American values must drive American foreign policy — not impulsive strikes without congressional authorization or clear strategic goals. And we must never attack another nation to distract from allegations of pedophiles at the highest levels of our government. Real strength means knowing when to fight, how to fight, and how to end it. Trump says this war could last four to five weeks. He has no plan for what comes after. History shows that’s where the real cost begins.

What I’d Have Demanded as Your Congressman

A congressional vote before the first strike. A clear legal justification. A defined objective and exit strategy. An honest accounting of the cost to American families — including Nebraska farm families now paying $800 a ton for fertilizer.

Those aren’t anti-war positions. They come from someone who wore the uniform and learned that authority and accountability matter — especially when lives and livelihoods are at stake.

One More Thing

My name is Mark Cohen. My father was Jewish. My grandparents told stories about the Holocaust. I won’t pretend that has nothing to do with my views on Israel. It does. Israel is a real country with real people in it, and the Palestinians are real people too. Neither group should be a prop in someone else’s culture war.

What Nebraska deserves is a representative who asks hard questions before the shooting starts — not one who claps along and then pretends the consequences aren’t his problem.

You're Not Apathetic. You're Paying Attention.

I've heard people say young voters don't care. That's wrong. Many younger Nebraskans care deeply — they're just smart enough to recognize that the two parties and the billionaires behind them have been feeding you the same broken promises for decades while picking your pockets. That’s one reason more young people (and more Americans) now identify as independents.

You're the generation that will inherit the debt, the warming planet, and the consequences of decisions made by people who won't be around to live with them. You deserve a representative who's honest with you about that — and who will  fight for your interests instead of using you as props every four years.

Younger Nebraskans want the “good life” their parents enjoyed. And they deserve it. Here's where I stand on the issues that matter most to you.

The Debt They're Leaving You

Here's a number the politicians don't want you to think about: the national debt is now more than $36 trillion. While the billionaires and their politicians lecture you about fiscal responsibility, they've spent decades cutting taxes on the ultra-wealthy and financing the difference by borrowing money — money that you and your children will have to repay. One party tells you the solution is cutting your benefits. The other doesn't have the backbone to tell the billionaires to pay their fair share. I will.

The Planet You'll Live On

Global warming is real, it's accelerating, and it directly threatens Nebraska agriculture — your future, and your family's livelihood. Extreme weather cost Nebraska $2 billion in damages in 2024 alone. The atmospheric carbon dioxide level is higher than at any point in at least 650,000 years, and the rate of increase is accelerating. This isn't political opinion; it's ice core data. You can't grow crops in dust and floodwater. I believe fossil fuels are a necessary bridge while we transition to cleaner energy, but pretending the problem doesn't exist is not a bridge — it's a cliff.

Housing and the 50-Year Mortgage

Housing costs have outpaced wages for a generation. That's not an accident — it's the result of tax and economic policies that reward financial speculation over working people. A 50-year mortgage is not the solution. Strengthening antitrust enforcement, taxing the wealthy fairly, and directing that revenue into programs that build affordable housing are real solutions.

Student Debt and Education

Knowledge is good. (Yes, I'm quoting Animal House, and I stand by it.) An educated population is how we solve problems, cure diseases, and maintain a democracy. Yet we've made it so expensive to get an education that young people are starting their adult lives tens of thousands of dollars in debt for the crime of trying to better themselves. At the same time, we give tax breaks to billionaires and cut funding to Land Grant institutions like the University of Nebraska. Recent cuts at UNL reduced local degree options, increased brain drain, and limited research relevant to rural communities. That's exactly backwards. Making the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share would free up money for education grants, reduce reliance on tuition, and reduce property taxes to boot.

I believe Americans should be able to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy just like any American who qualifies for bankruptcy can discharge consumer or medical debt.  

Jobs and AI

Artificial intelligence will change the economy dramatically in your lifetime — more dramatically than the internet changed it in mine. Some of those changes will be positive; many will be disruptive. When AI eliminates jobs, the profits from that efficiency go to the corporations. The workers who lose their jobs? They're on their own. That's not inevitable — it's a policy choice. We need to strengthen unions, protect collective bargaining rights, and ensure that the productivity gains from AI don't just flow to the top. We must also have an honest national conversation about retraining and economic security for workers displaced by automation. Nebraska's young people deserve leaders who are thinking about this seriously rather than pretending it isn't happening.

Privacy and Your Data

The corporations know far more about you than you think — and they're making money from that information while you get nothing. Every app, every platform, every search engine is harvesting data from you. AI is making it worse. The people telling you to fear the "Deep State" helped the billionaires build the surveillance infrastructure. I believe you have a constitutional right to privacy, and I'll fight for legislation that protects it. That means requiring informed consent for data collection, setting meaningful limits on what corporations can do with your information, and ensuring that AI development doesn't leave your rights behind.

Breaking the Two-Party Trap

Here's the thing the two parties don’t want to tell you: they need you to be angry at each other. They need you to believe the only choices are red or blue, liberal or conservative, your team or the enemy. That's how they distract you while they cut taxes for billionaires and stick you with the bill. They want to divide us — they can't win if we're united. I'm counting on that. If you're ready for a representative who works for you instead of a party or a party boss, I'd be honored to have your support.

One More Thing

My generation left younger generations a mess. No doubt about it. But some in my generation tried to prevent it. We fought for civil rights and a clean environment. We wanted to honor the tradition of parents giving their children a better life. But billionaires used their advantages to give themselves even more advantages. Nebraska’s Third District contains more older Americans than most congressional districts. We can’t win without their support. Don’t let the billionaires deceive you by pitting older people against younger people.

Data centers are coming to Nebraska whether we plan for them or not. The economic case for attracting them is real — a single large facility can create construction jobs and generate property tax revenue.  I do not oppose data centers; I oppose giving away Nebraska’s most precious resource to get them.

A large data center can consume up to 5 million gallons per day, and about 80 percent of that water evaporates during cooling and never returns to the ground. Nebraska sits on two-thirds of the Ogallala Aquifer, the largest underground freshwater reserve in the country. That aquifer is already declining in parts of our district. Once it’s gone, it’s gone — it took millions of years to fill. Any company that wants to build a data center in NE-03 should be required to use water-efficient cooling technology.

There is also a bubble risk that we must take seriously. Economists watching the AI buildout — including MIT research fellow Paul Kedrosky — compare it to prior speculative booms: prodigious capital spending, circular revenue arrangements, and an extractive model that produces declining returns over time. Data center equipment depreciates on an accelerated schedule. The company captures its tax benefit early, writes down the assets, and moves on. Nebraska is left with a depleted aquifer and a stranded power grid.

While data centers are primarily a state and local issue, Congress can play a role. The bipartisan GRID Act would require new data centers with a demand of 20 MW or more to find their own power sources independent of the public electric grid. The Data Center Transparency Act would require the EPA to collect data on data center water consumption, air pollution, and utility costs. The Shield Act would protect residential and small business ratepayers from subsidizing grid upgrade required by large data centers. The PRICE Act would mandate that data centers reach 100% clean energy use by 2040.

Privacy and the Global Surveillance State

I believe there is a constitutional right to privacy implicit in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Founders understood that a free people must have a private sphere that government cannot enter without good cause. That principle is under assault — and the threat is not coming from where you might expect.

 The People Telling You to Fear the “Deep State” Are the Deep State

For years, politicians railed against surveillance and government overreach. Now some of those same politicians are handing unprecedented access to our private data to billionaires and building systems that would make the old “Deep State” they warned about look modest by comparison. When a private citizen with no security clearance — accountable to no one — gains access to federal databases containing the financial and personal records of every American, that is not fighting the deep state. That is the deep state.

Rural Nebraskans value their privacy. Your land, your finances, your medical records, your family — these are yours. The idea that the government or some Silicon Valley billionaire should monitor your every transaction, track your location, and build a file on you without your consent is not conservative – it is the opposite of everything conservatives once claimed to stand for.

What Is the Global Surveillance State?

The “global surveillance state” is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented and accelerating reality:

 •        Your smartphone, your car, your smart TV, and almost every app you use constantly collect data about you — your location, your habits, your purchases, your health, your politics, your relationships.

•        Data brokers buy and sell that data. The government can often access it without a warrant — a legal end-run around your Fourth Amendment rights.

•        AI and facial recognition technology now allow governments and corporations to identify you in public spaces, track your movements, and predict your behavior.

•        China already uses this technology in its “Social Credit System” — a system that rewards compliant citizens and punishes dissent. We are not China. But the danger that America could move in that direction is real, and too many of your elected representatives are doing nothing to stop it.

•        Foreign adversaries — including China — are actively purchasing American farmland and real estate near military installations, partly to exploit the data and intelligence advantages that physical proximity provides.

Why This Matters To Rural Nebraskans

If you think surveillance is an urban problem, think again. Here is what is happening in rural Nebraska right now:

 •        Precision agriculture technology — GPS-connected planters, yield monitors, soil sensors — generates an enormous amount of data about your farm, your soil, your yields, and your finances. Who owns that data? Who can sell it? Who can use it against you when you are negotiating with a grain elevator, an insurance company, or a bank?

•        Large agricultural corporations and data brokers already harvest farm data and use it to their advantage. A farmer who allows a seed company’s app to collect yield data from his fields may be giving away competitive intelligence to the very corporation he is negotiating against.

•        Surveillance drones — including foreign-made drones — are already operating over American farmland. Who is flying them? What are they looking at? Who gets the data?

•        If you live in a rural area with limited broadband, you may depend on satellite internet providers. Those providers hold detailed records of everything you do online. Do you know who can access those records, and under what circumstances?

AI Is Accelerating the Problem

Artificial intelligence is transforming surveillance from a passive to an active threat. AI can now analyze vast quantities of data — your browsing history, your purchases, your social media, your location data, your financial transactions — and construct a detailed model of who you are, what you believe, what you are likely to do, and what your vulnerabilities are. This is not science fiction. Insurance companies, employers, banks, and law enforcement already use these tools. The question is not whether this is happening. The question is whether any rules will govern it.

Right now, there are almost no federal rules. The United States has no comprehensive federal data privacy law. Every other major democracy — the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia — has enacted privacy legislation that gives citizens meaningful rights over their own data. We have not. The corporations that profit from your data have spent enormous amounts of money to keep it that way.

What Congress Should Do:

Enact a Federal Data Privacy Law

Americans should have the legal right to know what data corporations and the government collect on them, who sells it, and who buys it. They should have the right to correct inaccurate data, to opt out of data collection, and to have their data deleted. These are not radical ideas. They are basic rights that citizens in most of the developed world already hold. Congress has failed to act because the corporations that profit from your data have enormous lobbying power. I will support comprehensive federal data privacy legislation.

Close the Data Broker Loophole

The Fourth Amendment protects you from the government searching your home without a warrant. But when the government can simply purchase your data from a private data broker, that constitutional protection means nothing. Congress should prohibit the government from purchasing data about Americans that it would otherwise need a warrant to obtain. Your constitutional rights should not evaporate because a corporation collected the same information the government wants.

Regulate Facial Recognition and AI Surveillance

Law enforcement and private companies deploy facial recognition technology with little oversight and no national standard. These systems have well-documented error rates, especially for people of certain ethnicities. Congress should establish clear federal standards governing when and how facial recognition and AI surveillance tools can be used, require transparency, and create accountability mechanisms when these tools are misused.

Protect Farm Data

Congress should establish clear rules that farmers own the data generated on their farms. A seed company, an equipment manufacturer, or a software provider should not claim ownership of the yield data, soil data, or production data from your farm. That data is yours. I will support legislation that protects farmers’ data rights and prevents agricultural corporations from using farm data to gain unfair commercial advantages over the farmers who generated it.

Restrict Foreign Ownership Near Critical Infrastructure

Congress should restrict the purchase of American farmland and real estate by foreign adversaries — particularly near military installations, critical infrastructure, and sensitive agricultural regions. This is a national security issue as well as a privacy issue. Several states have already acted; we need a consistent federal standard.

Strengthen Congressional Oversight of Intelligence Programs

Various surveillance programs run by our intelligence agencies are supposed to be overseen by Congress. That oversight has been inadequate. I will support real, meaningful oversight of government surveillance programs — not rubber-stamp reviews, but genuine scrutiny with consequences for agencies that exceed their authority.

What I Will Do

•        Co-sponsor and vote for comprehensive federal data privacy legislation that gives Americans meaningful rights over their own data.

•        Support legislation prohibiting the government from purchasing Americans’ data to circumvent Fourth Amendment protections.

•        Support federal farm data rights legislation that ensures farmers own the data generated on their land.

•        Support federal restrictions on foreign adversaries purchasing American farmland and critical infrastructure.

•        Oppose any legislation or executive action that gives unaccountable private individuals access to Americans’ personal and financial data held by the federal government.

•        Demand real congressional oversight of government surveillance programs and intelligence agencies.

•        Push for federal standards governing the use of AI surveillance tools, facial recognition technology, and predictive policing systems.

Banking, the Federal Reserve, and the War on Cash

Most politicians avoid this topic. It involves complicated finance, powerful institutions, and questions that don’t fit party talking points. I’m talking about it anyway, because the stakes for ordinary Nebraskans are enormous.

The Federal Reserve: What It Is, What It Isn’t, and Why It Matters

The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. It controls the money supply, sets short-term interest rates, and serves as the lender of last resort for the banking system. When the Fed raises interest rates to fight inflation, farmers pay more to finance their operating costs and equipment. When the Fed lowers rates, borrowing becomes cheaper — but lower rates can also fuel inflation that raises the cost of everything from seed to fuel to groceries. Those decisions hit rural Nebraska hard, and they’re made by people nobody in this district voted for.

The Fed is not a government agency in the traditional sense. It is a hybrid institution: nominally private, but with government-appointed leadership and a public mandate. Its decisions affect every American, yet it operates with considerable independence from Congress. That independence has benefits — it shields monetary policy from short-term political pressure — but it also creates real accountability problems. When the Fed makes mistakes that cost ordinary Americans trillions of dollars, nobody gets fired and nobody goes to jail.

I support an independent central bank. But independence is not immunity from oversight. Congress must examine the Fed’s decisions, understand its failures, and hold it accountable when its policies consistently benefit Wall Street at the expense of ordinary Nebraskans.

Distrust of the Fed

Many people distrust the Federal Reserve. Some distrust is warranted. Some rests on claims that aren’t true.

What is not true: No foreign banking dynasty secretly owns the Fed. It is not a private corporation operating outside the law. No hidden hand created it to enslave Americans through debt. These claims have floated around for over a century and sometimes carry antisemitic undertones. They are false

What is true: The Fed held interest rates near zero for over a decade, inflating asset prices that mostly rewarded people who already owned stocks and real estate — not farmers financing a crop. It failed to prevent the 2008 financial crisis. It bailed out the largest banks while ordinary Americans lost their homes and savings. It wields sweeping power with minimal accountability to Congress or the public.

The Big Banks and the “Too Big to Fail” Problem

The 2008 financial crisis — driven primarily by reckless and fraudulent behavior at large financial institutions — made the big banks bigger, not smaller. The six largest banks in America now hold assets equal to nearly 70 percent of U.S. GDP. When those banks fail, the government bails them out because letting them fail would bring down the broader economy.

Think about this. These institutions take enormous risks because they know taxpayers will rescue them if those risks blow up. The profits go to shareholders and executives. Taxpayers absorb the losses. That is not capitalism – it’s “heads I win, tails you lose.” It’s the opposite of the free market principles that real conservatives once believed in.

Meanwhile, community banks and credit unions — the institutions that primarily serve rural Nebraska — carry heavy regulatory burdens built for large institutions. Some have closed. The communities they served lost access to local credit, local financial advice, and local loan decisions. When a local farmer walks into a community bank, the loan officer knows the land, knows the family, and can exercise good judgment. When that loan runs through an algorithm at a distant megabank, the farmer is just a credit score.

The War on Cash: A Real Concern

For several years, central banks worldwide — including the Federal Reserve — have studied and in some cases piloted Central Bank Digital Currencies, or CBDCs. A CBDC is a digital form of government-issued currency held directly with the central bank or through the banking system.

Proponents argue that CBDCs would be more efficient, reduce financial crime, and improve monetary policy transmission. Some of those arguments have merit, but the risks outweigh the benefits.

A CBDC Would Enable Total Financial Surveillance

Cash is private. When you pay cash, no permanent record of that transaction enters a government database. A CBDC eliminates that entirely. Every transaction — every purchase, every payment, every gift — gets recorded, traced, and made available to the government. The IRS already receives reports on bank transactions above certain thresholds. A CBDC takes that to its logical extreme: complete, permanent visibility into every dollar you earn, spend, save, or give away. No warrant. No probable cause. No limit.

If you value your privacy — and every farmer, rancher, and small business owner in greater Nebraska does — a CBDC is a direct threat to how you live and work. The small cash transaction at the farm auction, the informal arrangement between neighbors, the private gift to a family member — all of it enters a government database. For the first time in American history, Washington would know exactly what you buy, what you sell, and who you pay. That is not a future we should accept.

Programmable Money Is Controllable Money

The most alarming feature in some CBDC proposals is “programmable money” — conditions on how currency works. A government could issue a CBDC that functions only at certain stores, in certain regions, before a certain expiration date, or for approved purposes only. It could freeze or confiscate your funds without a court order. This is not science fiction. This is engineering a system that gives government total control over your life.

China has already deployed expiring digital currency to force spending on the government’s timeline. Authoritarian governments have weaponized financial access to silence dissidents and punish political opponents for decades. We must not build that infrastructure here — because once it exists, the next administration, or the one after that, will use it. The moment the government can cut off your money because of what you believe, who you voted for, or what you said, freedom is gone.

The Elimination of Community Banking

If Americans can hold accounts directly at the Federal Reserve through a CBDC, why would they keep money in community banks and credit unions? Many wouldn’t. A CBDC that cuts out community banking would devastate the financial institutions rural Nebraska depends on. Small towns lose their banks. Farmers lose relationship-based credit. Everything gets homogenized toward a distant megabank that sees them as a data point.

This Is Not Partisan — Both Parties Have Failed Us

Democrats have cozied up to Wall Street while claiming to represent working people. Republicans claim to stand for free markets and small government but have repeatedly bailed out the largest financial institutions and let financial power concentrate to the point where genuine free markets can’t function.

The big banks fund both parties, and both parties protect them. Congress needs an independent voice — one who doesn’t answer to Wall Street donors.

What Congress Should Do:

Prohibit a Retail CBDC Without Congressional Authorization

The Federal Reserve must not issue a retail Central Bank Digital Currency — one held directly by consumers — without explicit congressional authorization. This change is too significant for an unelected institution to make without public debate and a legislative vote. Several bipartisan bills have proposed exactly this requirement. I support them.

Protect the Legal Status of Cash

Congress should explicitly affirm that U.S. currency — paper and coin — must always be accepted as legal tender for all debts, public and private. Cash won’t disappear overnight. It will fade quietly, by default, until millions of Americans wake up with no private way to pay for anything. I will oppose every policy that pushes us toward that outcome.

Reform Regulations to Protect Community Banks

Congress should cut the regulatory burden on small community banks and credit unions while tightening scrutiny on the largest financial institutions. The current system does the reverse — it buries small banks in compliance costs while big banks deploy armies of lawyers to navigate the rules. I will support tiered regulation that distinguishes between the systemic risks megabanks pose and the community role local institutions play.

Reinstate and Strengthen “Too Big to Fail” Safeguards

Dodd-Frank put safeguards in place after the 2008 crisis. Congress and regulators have since gutted many of them. Congress should reinstate meaningful capital requirements, leverage limits, and resolution planning rules for systemically important financial institutions. If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to operate without extraordinary oversight. When it fails anyway, shareholders and executives absorb the losses — not taxpayers.

Increase Transparency and Accountability at the Federal Reserve

I support an independent audit of the Federal Reserve — not to destroy its independence, but to force transparency and make its decisions readable by the public and Congress. When the Fed makes trillion-dollar decisions that touch every American family, those decisions must not happen behind closed doors.

Reform the Agricultural Credit System

The Farm Credit System exists to get reliable credit to agricultural producers. But farmers say it has grown more bureaucratic, more risk-averse, and less responsive to their actual needs — especially for smaller operations. Congress should audit whether the Farm Credit System still fulfills its mission and fix it where it doesn’t. Farmers who can’t access credit can’t plant.

What I Will Do

•        Oppose any CBDC that gives the government real-time visibility into Americans’ financial transactions, allows programmable restrictions on spending, or enables the government to freeze funds without a court order.

•        Require explicit congressional authorization before the Federal Reserve can issue any retail Central Bank Digital Currency.

•        Protect the legal status of cash as a payment option and oppose policies that accelerate its elimination.

•        Support tiered banking regulation that reduces burdens on community banks and credit unions while increasing oversight of systemically important megabanks.

•        Support an independent audit of the Federal Reserve to increase transparency and public accountability.

•        Reinstate and strengthen safeguards for systemically important financial institutions to ensure that banking failures do not become taxpayer bailouts.

•        Examine and reform the Farm Credit System to ensure it is actually meeting the credit needs of Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers.

•        Refuse campaign contributions from the largest financial institutions, so Wall Street doesn’t own my vote before I cast it.

•        Never support any legislation that eliminates your right to use cash.

Nebraskans understand money. They run businesses, manage tight margins, and plan for uncertain futures. They know debt is real, financial independence matters, and that when someone offers to manage your money, you read the fine print. The politicians building a cashless surveillance economy aren’t doing it to help you. They’re doing it to control you. This is not paranoia. It is a documented policy agenda moving through central banks right now. I will stand against it — and I will use every tool a congressman has to stop it.

“Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God” - Micah 6:8

My father and his family were Jewish. I know what it looks like when a government decides whose faith counts and whose doesn’t. I served in the Air Force because I believe in the values embodied in our Constitution — including religious freedom and equality.

Nebraska’s churches helped build this state. They buried the dead, fed the poor, and kept communities alive through drought and depression. Nobody told them to. That is what real faith looks like — it works from the inside out, through service and sacrifice and love.

Too many politicians today wrap the cross in a campaign banner and call it conservatism. They invoke scripture to justify cutting food assistance and turning away the sick. The Beatitudes do not say “Blessed are the powerful.”

Christianity is a faith. Christian nationalism is a power grab wearing a cross. Like any ideology that uses government to impose its religious morality on others, it threatens the freedom of every American — including Christians who refuse to go along with one small group’s narrow interpretation of scripture.

What the Founders Believed

The Constitution does not mention Jesus or Christianity. Not once. The Constitution’s only references to religion are the First Amendment’s prohibition on establishing one, and Article VI’s explicit ban on religious tests for public office. The Founders made that choice deliberately because they had seen what happens when governments claim to speak for God.

In 1797, the United States Senate unanimously ratified, and President John Adams signed, the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of that treaty states plainly: “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” That sentence was read aloud on the Senate floor, printed in American newspapers, and approved without a single dissenting vote. George Washington wrote that America stood open to people of all nations and religions, and that whether workers “are Muslims, Jews, Christians of any Sect, or… Atheists” matters less than whether they are good citizens. This is the founding tradition — not a Christian nation that tolerates others, but a free nation that protects everyone.

Welcome Comes With a Covenant

America welcomes people of every faith. But welcome comes with a covenant: you embrace the Constitution, the rule of law, and the principle that no religion — including your own — gets to govern everyone else. That is not a burden. That is the deal that makes freedom possible for all of us.

Goldwater and Reagan Warned Us

Barry Goldwater stood on the Senate floor in 1981 and warned his own party:

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise.” [He was referring to Jerry Falwell’s so-called Moral Majority, not to all Christians].

Goldwater’s warning aged well. In our own time, the most visible face of the movement he feared was Charlie Kirk, whose organization Turning Point USA has built a machine out of dividing Americans into two tribes and calling the split a moral conflict. Kirk said on stage in 2023 that Martin Luther King Jr. was “awful” and that passing the Civil Rights Act was “a huge mistake.” Ronald Reagan signed Martin Luther King Day into federal law in 1983. That is the distance between the conservatism that won the Cold War and the performance that claims its name today.

Ronald Reagan said it plainly in 1984: “We establish no religion in this country. We command no worship. We mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.” Reagan also said America “was founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs” and that “our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism.”

Goldwater was right. Reagan was clear. The Republican Party that produced both men would not recognize what claims to speak for conservatism today. As recently as December, Donald Trump Jr. said, “There is no Republican Party.” He was right.

What I Will Do

I will defend religious liberty for everyone — Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, and every person in between. Religious liberty that protects only the majority is not religious liberty. It is religious dominance.

I will oppose any effort to establish a government-preferred religion. Proposals to inject specific religious doctrine into public schools or use taxpayer money to advance one denomination’s theology are not hypothetical — they move through Congress right now. I will vote against them.

I will protect religious institutions’ freedom to govern themselves. The state has no business in the internal religious affairs of churches, synagogues, or mosques. The same principle that keeps government from establishing religion keeps government from interfering with how faith communities practice it.

I will defend equal access, not preferred access, for every faith. When public schools or public universities open their facilities to one outside group, the Constitution requires them to open those facilities to all comparable groups on the same terms. That has been settled Supreme Court law since Lamb’s Chapel (1993) and Good News Club (2001) — cases conservative legal groups rightly championed. A public school that hosts Turning Point Faith must also host a Muslim student association, a Jewish student group, a humanist club, or anything else on the same terms. The principle cuts both ways, and I respect it both ways.

Nebraska was built by people of faith who understood that conscience cannot be coerced, that the church and the government serve different purposes, and that mixing the two corrupts both. Many of them came from places where state religion was the rule. They came here to escape it.