EDITORIAL: In their words: Four East Bay candidates to succeed ex-Rep. Swalwell in D.C. make their cases to our readers.
May 7-Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
The open race to fill former Rep. Eric Swalwell's seat in Congress is among the most closely watched in California. The nearly 800,000 Alameda County residents who live in the 14th Congressional District have the choice of nine candidates on their June 2 ballots. As part of our editorial board's endorsement process, we asked several candidates a series of questions on a range of topics, including housing, health care, AI, inequality and public transit. As the race has evolved, three Democrats - Melissa Hernandez, Rakhi Israni and Aisha Wahab - and Republican Dena Maldonado have emerged as the most viable contestants.
- Hernandez, 51, is president of BART's board of directors and the former mayor of Dublin.
- Israni, 52, is a Fremont-based attorney and test-prep company founder.
- Maldonado, 37, is a Dublin-based florist.
- Wahab, 39, is a Hayward-based state senator representing District 10 and the assistant majority leader in the Senate. (Sen. Wahab has received this paper's endorsement, which you can read here.)
To help voters understand more about these candidates, here is a curated selection of our questionnaire.
(Their answers have been edited for length and clarity.)
What are the top three problems you're seeking to solve if elected?
Hernandez:
1. Bring down the costs to build new housing.
2. Expand access to affordable, quality health care.
3. Expand access to affordable, quality childcare.
Israni:
1. Affordability: Too many families across Silicon Valley, the East Bay and the Tri-Valley are doing everything right and still falling behind.
2. Government dysfunction: Washington is producing headlines instead of results.
3. Erosion of economic opportunity: The economy is being transformed by artificial intelligence, automation and global realignment, and working families are being asked to absorb all the risk while benefits flow to those already at the top.
Maldonado:
1. Transparency in government spending.
2. Restoring parents' involvement in their children's education.
3. Protecting Second Amendment rights.
Wahab:
1. The cost of living, especially housing, health care, utilities and everyday essentials.
2. Economic insecurity, including the loss of stable middle-class jobs and the threat of AI-driven displacement.
3. A lack of accountability from powerful institutions, whether that is corporations, federal agencies or government systems that are failing working families.
Why are you uniquely qualified to address the three problems you've identified above?
Hernandez:
As mayor of Dublin, I have the knowledge and experience to address housing issues and drive economic development. As a health care services director for a county supervisor, I have the knowledge and experience to address health care access and affordability. And as a one-time working single mom, I understand the need for affordable, quality childcare.
Israni:
I've built a business, practiced law, served on the bench, raised a family and led a national humanitarian organization, all in this community, all at the same time. On affordability, I built a business from the ground up right here in Fremont. On government dysfunction, I'm not a career politician. On economic transformation, I founded a nationwide education company in the shadow of Silicon Valley. I've mentored hundreds of students trying to build careers in a rapidly shifting economy. Through my humanitarian work, I have served people who fall through the cracks when the economy leaves them behind.
Maldonado:
I'm not a career politician - and that's exactly why I approach these issues differently. As a business owner, I've had to manage real budgets, make tough tradeoffs and be accountable for every dollar. My priorities come directly from conversations with people in this district. I've knocked on thousands of doors and spoken with residents one-on-one. On education, I've heard from parents who feel shut out of decisions involving their own kids. On the Second Amendment, I've heard from people who want their rights respected and the law applied consistently. My positions reflect those conversations.
Wahab:
My life experience and my record line up with the challenges people face. I grew up in foster care, lived through deep instability, worked full-time through school and know firsthand what it means to struggle for safety and opportunity. In the Legislature, I have shown that I can take hard problems and turn them into policy that lowers costs, protects vulnerable people and demands accountability. I do not just talk about affordability and fairness. I have delivered on them.
What differentiates you from your most serious competitors for this seat?
Hernandez:
I have built relationships in this district over 20 years. I show up and collaborate with anyone willing to work to solve problems and find creative new ideas to bring resources to our cities and residents. I also have extensive experience working with all the leaders in Alameda County and understand the diverse needs of each city and their residents in the 14th Congressional District.
Israni:
I'm the only candidate in this race who combines real-world business experience with a career of direct service to our community. I have built a successful nationwide business employing hundreds of people. I'm focused on affordability, anti-corruption, government performance and restoring trust in public institutions through competence rather than rhetoric. I'm a results-oriented Democrat who will revitalize our economy, not a politician who will play partisan games. I have the toughness to solve the urgent and important challenges facing our district.
Maldonado:
What sets me apart is how I've actually built this campaign. I'm a business owner who decided to run after seeing a real disconnect between what people are dealing with and what's coming out of Washington. I've been out knocking on doors across the district and having one-on-one conversations with people. That's shaped how I understand the issues and how I think about solutions. I also bring a practical mindset. I'm used to managing budgets, making decisions with real consequences and being accountable for results.
Wahab:
I offer both lived experience and a proven record of governing. I have been recognized as one of the most effective legislators in Sacramento and have been able to have many of my bills become bipartisan and signed into law. I have passed laws, helped shape budgets and taken on powerful interests on behalf of working people. I am not running to build a brand. I am running to solve problems. Voters deserve someone who understands struggle personally, knows how government works and has already shown the courage to fight for real change.
What one congressional committee would you most like to chair, if given the opportunity? And how would that position serve your constituents?
Hernandez:
I would seek to be on the Energy and Commerce Committee and seek to chair the Subcommittee on Health. The Energy and Commerce Committee touches on every aspect of the cost of living - trade, health, technology, energy and the environment. Serving as chair of the Subcommittee on Health would allow me to utilize my knowledge of the health care challenges residents face and craft legislation to help expand access to affordable, accessible and high-quality care for all.
Israni:
The House Education and the Workforce Committee. The two challenges facing this district include the mental health crisis among our young people and the massive workforce disruption being driven by AI, and both fall squarely within this committee's jurisdiction. I would fight to fund retraining and upskilling programs so our workforce can manage and leverage AI rather than be replaced by it, make community college and vocational training free for high-demand skills and expand investment in trades and health care careers that AI cannot displace. This committee is where education policy, workforce development and labor protections all converge.
Maldonado:
I'd want to serve on - and ideally chair - the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. That's where you can actually hold government accountable - how money is spent, whether programs are working and where things are falling short. This directly ties to one of my top priorities, which is transparency. People deserve a clear, straightforward understanding of where their tax dollars are going and what they're getting in return. In that role, I'd push for more accessible reporting, stronger oversight and a higher standard of accountability across the board.
Wahab:
I think it is premature to assume any chairmanship as a freshman. I would be open to multiple different committees and would be committed to leading in the best interest of my district, as I have in the Senate. I served as chair of Public Safety, Housing and now Business, Professions and Economic Development. I have led large policy packages each year to tackle the issues facing Californians in these respective committees. I hope to serve to the best of my ability, wherever I'm placed.
You're running to be a lawmaker. If you were going to be remembered for writing and passing one law, what would it be?
Hernandez:
I would author legislation that penalizes immigration attorneys and law firms that charge exorbitant legal fees and take financial advantage of people seeking legal status in this country.
Israni:
My signature legislation would be a comprehensive "Clean Up Washington Act" that (1) bans stock trading by members of Congress and their families, (2) imposes a mandatory retirement age of 75 for the president, Congress and federal judges and (3) establishes term limits for members of Congress. Government reform is the precondition for progress on everything else. You cannot fix housing if lawmakers are invested in the companies driving up costs. You cannot address the deficit honestly when the people writing the tax code are personally benefiting from the loopholes they refuse to close.
Maldonado:
I'd want to be remembered for passing a Taxpayer Transparency Act. Right now, most people have no clear way of understanding where their tax dollars actually go. The information is out there, but it's hard to find and even harder to make sense of. This would change that by requiring a simple, easy-to-understand breakdown - basically an "invoice" showing how money is spent, what it's funding and whether it's working. The goal is straightforward: give people real visibility into their government. When people can see where their money is going, it leads to better accountability and better decisions.
Wahab:
A law that makes the American Dream real again: lowering the cost of housing, expanding access to homeownership, protecting renters from abuse and stopping private equity firms from pricing families out of the communities they built.
Why should renters vote for you? How will you make their lives more affordable?
Hernandez:
I understand the challenges of the rising costs of living in the Bay Area and the struggle to find affordable and safe housing options. I will focus on lowering everyday costs: groceries, health care, childcare. I also want to explore strengthening tax credits for renters to help more renters keep more money in their wallets.
Israni:
To increase housing supply, I would:
1. Expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.
2. Use federal infrastructure and transportation funding to incentivize multifamily zoning near transit corridors.
3. Reform federal policies that have historically contributed to housing scarcity.
4. Create accountability mechanisms for jurisdictions that block housing construction while receiving federal dollars.
To provide direct affordability relief, I would:
1. Strengthen protections against predatory rental practices.
2. Expand emergency rental assistance programs.
3. Rein in corporate consolidation of rental housing that drives up prices and reduces tenant leverage.
Maldonado:
What I'd focus on is making sure federal policy is actually helping bring costs down - whether that's supporting housing supply, reducing unnecessary regulatory delays or making sure tax dollars are being used effectively in ways that improve affordability. Just as important, I'd stay directly engaged with the district. I've built this campaign by having real conversations with people, and I'd continue that in office - so I'm not guessing what renters need, I'm hearing it from them.
Wahab:
Renters should vote for me because I am one of them, and I understand the fear of being priced out. I have fought for tenant protections, lower move-in costs and more housing supply. In Congress, I would push for more housing production, stronger renter tax relief, enforcement against price gouging and junk fees, expanded rental assistance and federal investment that helps people stay in the communities where they work and raise their families.
Why should first-time homebuyers support you?
Hernandez:
I have a proven track record of getting more housing built and making the process more affordable. As mayor, I created programs to provide down payment loans at low-interest rates to first-time homeowners in Dublin. I want to support the expansion of programs like this in Congress.
Israni:
Right now, the system is structurally stacked against first-time buyers. I would support a federal agenda addressing supply, access and affordability, including:
1. Federal incentives for starter homes, condos, town homes and missing middle housing.
2. Targeted down payment assistance for middle-income first-time buyers.
3. Expanded and reformed first-time homebuyer tax benefits.
4. Federal transportation investment tied to local commitments to permit housing near transit.
Maldonado:
First-time homebuyers need more pathways into the market, including the ability to build on small plots of land. I support targeted tax incentives and streamlined permitting for individuals who want to build their own homes, while reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers that drive up costs and delay projects. Expanding these options can help increase housing supply and make homeownership more attainable - without forcing buyers into increasingly expensive, one-size-fits-all developments.
Wahab:
I hope to be a first-time homebuyer. Because I know homeownership should not be reserved for the wealthy or the already connected. I have already fought to help first-time buyers and expand access to down-payment support. In Congress, I would support federal down-payment assistance, lower borrowing and insurance costs where possible, expand starter-home construction and remove barriers that keep middle-class families from buying their first home.
Explain how you would use your position to help tackle homelessness in your district.
Hernandez:
In Congress, I would work to continue the allocation of funding to Alameda County and trusted nonprofits to tackle homelessness and provide mental health and substance use services at the local level. I would also conduct oversight to ensure that these funds are achieving positive, lasting outcomes.
Israni:
In Congress, I would fight to protect and expand federal funding for supportive housing and homelessness prevention programs. I would push for increased investment in mental health and substance abuse treatment, which are often the root causes of chronic homelessness. I would also support expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to incentivize the construction of more affordable housing. At the local level, I would work closely with local officials to ensure federal resources are flowing to evidence-based programs.
Maldonado:
We need to be honest about what's working and what isn't. I support redirecting funding away from programs that aren't delivering results and prioritizing mental health and addiction treatment, which are often at the root of chronic homelessness. We should absolutely help people - but that support should be tied to participation in programs that move them toward stability, employment and independence.
Wahab:
Homelessness requires urgency, compassion and honesty. I would push for a housing-first approach paired with treatment, mental health care and accountability for results. That means expanding permanent supportive housing, accelerating affordable housing production, protecting federal housing dollars, strengthening prevention so fewer people fall into homelessness in the first place and demanding measurable outcomes from agencies receiving public funds.
Bay Area transit agencies are facing a fiscal cliff. Their solvency appears to depend on the passage of a proposed November sales tax. What's your position on that tax? What changes would you demand of Bay Area transit agencies, if any, in order to receive more federal funds?
Hernandez:
I support the proposed November sales tax. I support establishing a permanent financial efficiency review and independent oversight committee composed of industry experts for each agency to maintain transparency and accountability.
Israni:
I support stabilizing Bay Area transit because reliable, affordable public transit is foundational to affordability, climate goals, economic competitiveness and mobility equity. If voters are being asked to approve another sales tax, transit agencies must provide a credible, public plan with concrete commitments on service reliability, cleaner stations, improved safety, fare coordination across agencies and a transparent timeline for how new revenue translates into measurable rider outcomes. At the federal level, I would condition additional federal transit funding on demonstrated regional governance reform. The Bay Area shouldn't be operating five or six independent transit agencies with no unified fare system.
Maldonado:
These are publicly funded systems, and they should be treated that way - with accountability to the taxpayers who support them. I do not support raising taxes or increasing federal funding without meaningful reform. Any additional funding should be conditional on measurable performance, financial transparency and a clear path toward operating more efficiently rather than relying on ongoing subsidies.
Wahab:
The region cannot afford a transit collapse, but taxpayers also deserve accountability. State law already authorized a November 2026 regional transit measure to help avoid major cuts. I support stabilizing transit, but any additional public investment must come with clear reforms: consolidation, cleaner and safer service, better frequency, stronger financial transparency and coordinated regional management and performance standards tied to reliability and ridership. Federal dollars should reward agencies that are improving the rider experience and using public money responsibly.
What is your position on the California High-Speed Rail project? Would you support appropriating more federal funds for it? If so, under what conditions, if any?
Hernandez:
In order to establish public confidence, this project must finish what is currently under construction and demonstrate that it is a usable, functioning passenger rail system. Lack of progress and continued cost increases deplete funding that could be used for other important rail projects.
Israni:
I support high-speed rail for California. Any new federal appropriation must require:
1. Independent cost oversight with regular public reporting rather than self-assessments.
2. Enforceable milestone deadlines tied directly to federal disbursements, so money flows only when benchmarks are met.
3. Full procurement transparency, including open access to contract terms, change orders and vendor performance.
4. A credible, independently validated plan to deliver a functional initial operating segment
5. A realistic long-term financing framework that accounts for costs, revenues and risks.
I will fight for the federal investment this project needs.
Maldonado:
I do not support allocating any additional federal funding to California's High-Speed Rail project. After years of cost overruns and missed deadlines, it has become a clear example of failed government spending. Before any further discussion of funding, there should be a full independent audit and accountability for how taxpayer dollars were used. My priority is protecting taxpayers from continued waste - not doubling down on a project that has not delivered.
Wahab:
I support high-speed rail as a long-term climate, mobility and economic project, but it must be grounded in public trust. California's High-Speed Rail Authority says about $4 billion in federal funding was removed from its budget assumptions in late 2025, leaving federal funding at less than 10% of total program costs. I would support additional federal funding only with strong oversight, realistic milestones, independent accountability and a clear demonstration that each added dollar moves the project meaningfully toward usable service.
Joint Venture Silicon Valley estimates 400,000 Bay Area jobs are at risk of being replaced by AI. What legislation would you support, if any, to protect your district's workers and/or consumers from automation?
Hernandez:
I would establish a framework for digital monitoring of employee performance and use the data to make decisions to manage workers and data privacy. I would propose tax incentives to maintain employees or the withholding of subsidies to companies that replace workers with AI automation. I'd also support on-the-job retraining and the offer of alternative employment for workers whose job is threatened by AI automation. Laws that keep humans in a decision-making role, like in health care, would also be on my agenda.
Israni:
I would support legislation on three fronts. First, upskilling our existing knowledge workforce to manage, deploy and oversee AI rather than be replaced by it. Second, expanding funding for professional training in fields that AI cannot replace any time soon such as trades, nursing, health care, skilled construction and other hands-on careers.Third, and perhaps most critically, maintaining America's competitive leadership in AI itself. Legislation that supports American AI research, protects our intellectual property and ensures that the economic gains from this technology are generated here and shared broadly is essential to both our national security and our economic future.
Maldonado:
AI is going to transform the workforce, but rushing into heavy regulation or new taxpayer-funded programs before we understand its full impact would be a mistake. I believe we should allow innovation to continue while maintaining a flexible economy that creates new opportunities. Government's role should be limited - focused on transparency and accountability, not expanding bureaucracy or imposing new costs on taxpayers.
Wahab:
I would support legislation requiring worker impact assessments for major AI deployments, stronger notice and transparency when automation changes jobs, retraining and apprenticeship investments, portable benefits, protection against algorithmic discrimination and clear consumer safeguards around privacy, fraud, deepfakes and automated decision-making. AI should raise productivity without pushing workers aside or stripping consumers of their rights.
Would you support legislation to curb children's use of social media?
Hernandez:
Yes.
Israni:
Yes. I'm the mother of four teenagers, so I see the grip these platforms have on young people in my own home every day. I would support legislation that addresses both the structural incentives and the specific harms. Platforms should be required to default to the least manipulative, most privacy-protective settings for users under 18. Features designed to hook adolescents through infinite scroll, autoplay and notification bombardment should be prohibited for minors. Data privacy protections for children must go substantially beyond what currently exists. I would also support stronger parental tools and family access controls as a complement.
Maldonado:
No.
Wahab:
Yes. I support strong, constitutional guardrails that protect children online. That includes age-appropriate design standards, stronger privacy protections, limits on addictive features aimed at minors, meaningful parental tools, safer reporting systems and accountability for platforms that knowingly profit from harm to children. I would support legislation that is effective, enforceable and respectful of privacy and free speech.
Wealth inequality has hit its widest gap in more than three decades. The top 1% of householdsown 31% of all U.S. wealth. What policies would you support, if any, to narrow the wealth gap?
Hernandez:
I would rescind Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," close loopholes that allow the rich to hide their wealth, hire more IRS workers to audit tax returns and crack down on corporations and wealthy people who dodge taxes. I'd also reform tax law.
Israni:
I would:
1. Strengthen the Child Tax Credit and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to put more money in working families' pockets.
2. Make community college and vocational training more affordable in order to open access to high-paying careers.
3. Close corporate tax loopholes and ensure the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations pay their fair share.
4. Protect and expand access to affordable health care, since medical debt is one of the leading drivers of poverty.
5. Expand access to home ownership.
6. Ban stock trading by members of Congress so lawmakers cannot profit from the policies they set.
Maldonado:
I don't support wealth redistribution as a solution. I believe the focus should be on expanding opportunity - making it easier for people to earn, build and keep their own income. That means supporting a strong economy, reducing unnecessary barriers to starting and growing businesses and ensuring people have access to good jobs. The goal should be upward mobility, not redistributing outcomes.
Wahab:
I would support policies that reward work more than wealth extraction: a fairer tax code, stronger labor protections, affordable child care, lower housing and health costs, expanded tax relief for working families, higher wages and more paths to asset building through homeownership, education and retirement savings. An economy cannot be healthy if it produces enormous wealth but leaves ordinary families unable to get ahead.
Explain your position on Donald Trump's military action against Iran. Would you support Rep. Ro Khanna's War Powers Resolution?
Hernandez:
I support Rep. Khanna's War Powers Resolution. Trump has no clear objectives and no clear end strategy. Iran has installed rulers even more conservative and hardline than their predecessors.
Israni:
I believe the United States must retain the ability to act swiftly to protect our national security, defend our allies and respond to imminent threats. But there is a critical difference between acting decisively and acting impulsively. Decisive action is informed by intelligence, grounded in strategy and backed by a clear objective. Impulsive action bypasses deliberation, ignores consequences and risks entangling our nation in conflicts without an exit strategy. The War Powers Resolution exists precisely to draw that line. No president should be able to unilaterally commit our nation to sustained military conflict without congressional authorization.
Maldonado:
I have serious concerns about any president - Republican or Democrat - taking unilateral military action without congressional approval. The Constitution is clear that Congress has the authority to declare war, and that standard should be upheld. That's why I would support Rep. Khanna's bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure that decisions of this magnitude go through Congress before the United States enters into sustained conflict.
Wahab:
I believe military action against Iran without clear congressional authorization is dangerous and wrong. Congress must reclaim its constitutional role over war. I would support Rep. Ro Khanna's Iran War Powers Resolution. The Congressional Progressive Caucus backed H.Con.Res. 38 on March 1, 2026, and the resolution states that hostilities against Iran must end unless Congress specifically authorizes them. America should pursue diplomacy, regional stability and restraint, not another open-ended conflict.
Bay Area counties will lose billions in coming years as a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. These federal cuts, particularly to health care, are expected to hit Alameda Counties' residents hard. What actions, if any, would you support to protect the health care of Alameda County?
Hernandez:
I would continue to support the efforts of Alameda County to reconcile with the health care cuts from OBBBA. As a member of Congress, I would explore reimbursement opportunities for counties that have faced substantial financial hardships from health care cuts and work to pass legislation that cements this funding.
Israni:
The proposed federal cuts under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would be devastating for Bay Area families, particularly in our district, where access to affordable health care is already a challenge for many. I would fight aggressively to restore and protect federal health care funding - particularly Medicaid. I would push to defend and strengthen ACA coverage, restore funding for community health centers and federally qualified health clinics and work to ensure that regions like ours, which carry a disproportionate share of uncompensated care, receive federal support commensurate with that burden.
Maldonado:
I believe we need to protect access to health care, especially for vulnerable populations, but simply increasing federal spending without accountability is not a sustainable solution. My focus would be on ensuring existing resources are used effectively - reducing waste, improving transparency and giving local providers more flexibility to deliver care. We should be prioritizing outcomes for patients, not just the size of government programs.
Wahab:
I would fight to restore and protect federal Medicaid funding, oppose barriers that cause eligible people to lose coverage, defend safety-net hospitals and clinics, expand community-based care and make sure counties are not abandoned when Washington shifts costs onto local governments. Health care should not be balanced on the backs of working families, seniors, children and people with disabilities.
Beyond the threat of immediate cuts facing county budgets, what other health care challenges face your district's residents? What policies would you support to improve their health access and outcomes?
Hernandez:
Health insurance and health care are too expensive. The focus should be on patient health, not corporate profits. This includes lowering prescription drug costs and holding big corporate health care providers accountable for lowering costs. There are also cost savings to be had by requiring national standards of care and creating national data sharing, making costs and care more transparent and standard.
Israni:
Our district faces a mental health crisis, especially among young people. We have a shortage of primary care and mental health providers, particularly in underserved communities. I would support making Medicare negotiate drug prices across all medications, not just the limited set currently covered, and allowing safe importation of cheaper medications from other countries. I would push to expand funding for community health centers and mental health services, including school-based counseling. I would fight for parity in mental health coverage so that insurers cannot shortchange behavioral health. And I would work to expand Medicaid access rather than restrict it.
Maldonado:
The biggest challenges I hear about are cost, access and mental health. People are paying more, waiting longer and still struggling to get timely care - especially when it comes to behavioral health. I'd focus on making care more accessible and affordable by increasing transparency, cutting unnecessary bureaucracy and expanding options like telehealth. The goal should be better outcomes for patients - not just more spending, but making sure resources actually reach care.
Wahab:
People in this district are dealing with high premiums, high deductibles, provider shortages, mental health access problems, long waits for care, gaps in maternal health and rising prescription costs. I would support stronger primary and preventive care, expanded mental health and substance-use treatment, better reimbursement for safety-net providers, prescription drug cost reform, protections for reproductive health care and workforce investments so more doctors, nurses, therapists and caregivers can serve our communities.
The federal government faces chronic deficits. It must either raise revenue or cut spending. Or both. Explain what policies you would support. Be specific.
Hernandez:
For revenue generation, we need to change the backward tax system that has the ultrawealthy paying less taxes than middle-class families. For deficit reduction, I'd support using the congressional power of oversight to evaluate possible areas of inflated budgets.
Israni:
I support closing corporate tax loopholes and establishing a minimum corporate tax so no profitable corporation pays zero in federal taxes. I would fund IRS enforcement capacity. I would look for savings in defense spending. I would also push for systemic health care cost reductions including drug price negotiation, preventive care investment and reduced administrative overhead. But the most important thing the federal government can do to close the deficit over time is grow the economy, and that requires investing in the engine of growth. I'd fight to restore and expand federal research funding. I won't gut Medicaid and SNAP.
Maldonado:
I believe the deficit should be addressed primarily by fixing spending - not raising taxes on working families. That means auditing federal programs, cutting waste and duplication and tying funding to real, measurable results. We also need to reduce administrative overhead - especially in health care - so more money actually goes to services, not bureaucracy. On the revenue side, I'd focus on growing the economy and enforcing the tax laws we already have, rather than creating new taxes. The goal is simple: spend smarter and make the system more efficient.
Wahab:
I support a balanced approach centered on fairness and effectiveness. I would raise revenue by making the tax code more progressive, closing loopholes that let the wealthiest individuals and large corporations avoid paying what they owe, improving IRS enforcement against high-end tax evasion and reviewing capital gains and carried-interest preferences that disproportionately benefit the very wealthy. On spending, I would target waste, fraud and abuse, including excessive contractor spending, duplicative programs and corporate giveaways that do not produce public benefit. I would not balance the budget by cutting basic health care, nutrition, housing or education for working people.
California taxpayers send billions more to the federal government than they receive back in federal spending. What specific actions would you take, if any, to steer more of California taxpayers' wealth back to this state?
Hernandez:
Federal funding decisions should be based on need and equity. How much a state gives and receives should be part of the equation in granting funds.
Israni:
I would focus on securing investments this district and state have earned, such as (1) transportation dollars commensurate with our population and infrastructure burden, (2) housing and infrastructure support that reflects California's cost reality, (3) climate resilience funding for wildfire, drought and sea level rise, (4) water infrastructure investment, (5) research funding and (6) health care resources calibrated to the cost of providing care. I would also reform federal programs that shortchange California. I would work to build a California congressional delegation that operates with more strategic coherence on federal investment priorities.
Maldonado:
The answer isn't to shift money between states - it's to lower taxes and reduce federal spending overall. Washington is taking too much to begin with, and Californians shouldn't have to fight to get back what never should have been taken in the first place.
Wahab:
I would fight to bring more federal investment to California through transportation, housing, water resilience, research, semiconductor manufacturing, wildfire prevention, public universities and health infrastructure. I would also oppose formulas that systematically shortchange high-cost, high-contribution states like California.
A Bay Area News Group analysis shows that federal agents have recently increased the number of deportations of immigrants without prior criminal histories. This has affected immigrants in this specific district. Do you support the Trump administration's immigration policies? Describe the immigration policies you'd support.
Hernandez:
I support deporting criminals. Now, we are deporting immigrants who are contributing members of our communities and are working their way through the immigration system. I do not support this or the actions of ICE to indiscriminately wreak havoc and ignore the constitutional rights of our residents. I support a revamp of our immigration system so that becoming a citizen is not such a long, complicated process. I support giving a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers. I support efforts to work with surrounding countries to stem the flow of immigrants crossing our border. I support strong border protections.
Israni:
I don't support the Trump administration's immigration policies. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids are tearing families apart. They aren't properly trained in de-escalation tactics and aren't solving anything. I support smart, humane immigration reform by protecting East Bay families from ICE overreach, hiring more immigration judges to clear the massive backlog and process cases fairly and a permanent legislative solution for Dreamers. We need enforcement that focuses on public safety threats, not parents dropping their kids off at school or workers contributing to our economy. The answer is comprehensive reform, not mass deportation of people without criminal records.
Maldonado:
I don't support or oppose immigration policy based on who's in office - I evaluate it based on whether it's effective and consistent with our values. There are aspects of Donald Trump's approach, like prioritizing border security, that I agree are necessary. But I don't support broad enforcement actions that target nonviolent individuals who are not a threat to public safety. I believe immigration policy should focus on securing the border, creating a functional legal immigration system and prioritizing enforcement on individuals who pose real risks - while respecting due process and avoiding unnecessary harm to families and communities.
Wahab:
No. Recent reporting shows immigration arrests and deportations have risen sharply, with federal officers now more likely to arrest people with no criminal convictions. I do not support fear-driven immigration enforcement that tears apart families and punishes people who are working, contributing and trying to build stable lives. I support comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, protection for Dreamers, farmworkers and long-term residents, humane asylum processing, due process, smart border management and enforcement priorities focused on genuine public-safety threats rather than indiscriminate sweeps.
What do the biggest contributors to your campaign expect from you?
Hernandez:
That I will continue to be me - a collaborator, accessible and that I do what I say I will do.
Israni:
They expect me to show up, fight for our community and deliver results. They expect me to take on Trump's harmful policies, lower the cost of living, clean up Washington and bring fresh leadership to Congress. No one is writing me a check because they expect a political favor. They are supporting me because they believe, as I do, that this district and the country deserves better than the status quo.
Maldonado:
I haven't taken large donations from special interests or outside groups - this campaign is funded by people who actually live here. Because of that, there aren't any hidden expectations. The expectation is pretty straightforward: represent the district honestly, be transparent and make decisions based on what's best for the community - not donors.
Wahab:
They expect me to be the same person in office that I am on the campaign trail: hardworking, accessible and focused on results. I have an open-door policy, will meet with everyone and try to build bridges. I will fight for affordability, fairness, public safety and accountability.
Do all of your policy goals above depend on your party controlling Congress? If so, how will you achieve anything if your party doesn't control Congress? How do you plan to build bipartisan coalitions to pass legislation in a divided Congress?
Hernandez:
Congress is hyperpolarized right now. Bipartisanship seems elusive. But I'm nothing if not persistent. And I have always been effective when I have taken the time to build relationships.
Israni:
Not all of my policy goals depend on Democrats controlling Congress. Many fundamental congressional reform measures such as stock trading bans, term limits and retirement age requirements have genuine bipartisan appeal. I'm hopeful that I can support and enact these, regardless of party control of the legislature. I would seek out legislators, regardless of party affiliation, who share specific goals, particularly on issues like government reform, veteran support, small business and immigration backlogs that affect constituents in both parties and across our nation.
Maldonado:
No - my approach doesn't depend on one party being in control. My top priority is transparency, and that's not a partisan issue. It's something people across the board want more of from their government. I'd focus on areas where there's real overlap - transparency, accountability, cost of living - and build from there. At the end of the day, it's about getting results for this district, and that means working with anyone willing to actually get something done.
Wahab:
No. Some progress is easier with aligned leadership, but effective lawmakers still build coalitions issue by issue. I would work across the aisle where there is real overlap: housing supply, support for small businesses, infrastructure, semiconductor and manufacturing jobs, consumer protection, anti-corruption efforts and helping families with everyday costs. I believe voters are tired of performative politics. They want lawmakers who know how to negotiate, stay grounded and keep pushing until something gets done.
What else should we know about your capacity to directly improve the lives of this district's constituents?
Hernandez:
Federal elected officials need to remain informed on the dynamic daily needs of their constituents, which will be my commitment if elected. One of my top priorities will be working with my cities to understand what federal funding was cut under the Trump administration and work to find creative ways to bring those funds back to CA-14.
Israni:
My parents came to this country with nothing, and America gave them a chance to build a life. That is the thread that runs through everything I've done. I built a nationwide education company. I practiced law pro bono for families who couldn't afford an attorney. I fought human trafficking and delivered humanitarian assistance. I raised four children in the East Bay, sent them to public school, served as PTSA president and watched the youth mental health crisis unfold as a parent. I have 20 years of roots in this community, and a career spent building things and solving problems.
Maldonado:
While knocking on hundreds of doors across the district, I've had countless residents tell me they've never had a congressional candidate take the time to speak with them - ever. That tells you everything about the disconnect people are feeling. I'm building this campaign by listening directly to residents, understanding their day-to-day challenges and staying accessible. That's how you create policies that aren't just theoretical, but actually improve people's lives.
Wahab:
My public service has always been rooted in one question: How does this help everyday people? I know what instability feels like. I know what it means to work hard and still worry about housing, safety and opportunity. That is why I approach policy with urgency and empathy, but also with discipline and a focus on outcomes. I have already shown that I can take on hard fights, pass meaningful laws and deliver for the people I represent. In Congress, I would bring that same focus to lowering costs, protecting rights, strengthening opportunity and making government work for this district.
Editor's note: To read our endorsements and interviews in the June 2026 primary, click here.
Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.