Sean Casten: 2026 candidate for 6th Congressional District

Bio

Party: Democratic

Office sought: 6th Congressional District

City: Downers Grove

Age: 54

Occupation: U.S. Representative for IL-06

Previous offices held: U.S. Representative for IL-06 (2019-Present)

Q&A

What is your top issue and how do you propose to address it?

I ran for office in 2018 on climate change as the existential threat to our species and have continued to prioritize it through my terms in Congress, most recently through the legislation that would remove the barriers to cheaper, cleaner energy in the United States.

That said, I was once advised that everyone has two piles of work on their desk. One is the “want-to-do” pile and the other is the “need-to-do” pile. Climate is the reason I ran and dominates my want -to-do pile. But the oath I took to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, increasingly dominates the need-to-do pile.

As long as we have a president in the White House who is denying all Americans their equal protection under the Constitution, who is grossly abusing the power of his office for self-enrichment, and who is eviscerating our global standing in ways that jeopardize the post-World War II order, it behooves the Congress to act as a check on the Executive.

Congressional oversight will come when Democrats take the majority, but we must also use our power of the purse to withhold funding for those who refuse to comply with ethics and the rule of law — from ICE to the Supreme Court.

Do you support the unilateral foreign policy course President Trump has taken with such actions as the bombing of Iran, assaults on Venezuelan ships and the seizure of the Venezuelan president?

In virtually all cases — most definitely including Venezuela — no. In general, the only argument that I find convincing on matters relating to U.S. military action without prior Congressional authorization is in cases where there is an imminent threat to the United States.

But in those cases, such actions require immediate Congressional notification thereafter and authorization for continued engagement. Neither of those conditions has been met in Venezuela, nor were they met prior to the bombing of Iran.

The executive branch has expanded its powers in recent years on foreign policy, economic tariffs, executive orders and more. Are you satisfied with the direction these activities are moving? If so, why? If not, what needs to be done differently?

I am not satisfied. I am, however, embarrassed by and ashamed of my Republican colleagues who have consistently refused to defend Congressional power as a coequal branch.

Congress has subpoena power, the ability to call oversight hearings, the ability to terminate Presidentially-declared national emergencies, the ability to hold uncooperative Executive Branch officials in contempt, and, of course, the power of impeachment.

Congress has the power of the purse and, therefore, the ability to compel the Executive Branch to faithfully execute the laws we pass. The Senate has the ability to prevent incompetent people from serving in senior positions.

Congress has the power to compel the distribution of congressionally-mandated funds that have been illegally withheld by the Office of Management and Budget.

In all those cases and more, we have pushed our Republican colleagues to defend congressional power. We may disagree on policy, but we should never disagree on defending the institution in which we have the privilege to serve.

And in every case, Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune have found it harder to stand up to Donald Trump than to stand up for the Constitution.

What should U.S. border policy be? If elected, what would you do to make it happen?

Immigration policy, at the highest level, has two objectives: keep bad people out, and welcome good people in.

An effective immigration policy, of course, must have robust border security. But it also must deal with the truth that most people who come to the United States are law-abiding, constructive people who make our lives better and our economy stronger.

A policy focused on border fences and deportation not only ignores those facts but hurts the very people that a country like ours should be proud to attract.

I have supported the American Dream and Promise Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act to provide amnesty and a path to citizenship for immigrants who have contributed to our country, committed no crimes, but are currently stuck in uncertainty and constantly vulnerable to abuse by xenophobes, criminals, and unscrupulous employers.

Sadly, too many of those xenophobes and criminals are now in charge of U.S. foreign policy and bear responsibility for the fear in our communities and the murder of foreigners and American citizens alike. Which is why I have also called for the impeachment of Secretary Noem.

What should be the government’s role in assuring health care for Americans? What should be done regarding the ACA to better perform this function?

The countries with the highest quality and most affordable health care all provide universal health care. The cause is fairly obvious: if everyone has care, you are more likely to obtain early-stage, low-cost preventative care.

As such, anything that expands the number of Americans who have access to all of the healthcare they need, at a price they can afford, makes us all richer and healthier.

To that end, I was proud to have helped expand the ACA tax credits, which helped ensure nearly 20 million more Americans had access to healthcare — just as I am ashamed that Speaker Johnson allowed those credits to lapse at the end of 2025.

We still have a coverage gap to fix among people who don’t have private insurance, aren’t eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans health care, or the Indian Health Service. Had Sen. Lieberman not blocked the public option when the ACA was first crafted, we would be in a very different place today. Let’s fix what he failed to do.

I’m proud to have helped restore Medicare’s ability to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies in the Inflation Reduction Act. That needs to be protected and expanded.

What is your vision for a solution to conflicts involving Israel and the Palestinians? What should the United States be doing to advance this position?

I have always been a supporter of a two-state solution to ensure security for Israelis and freedom and self-determination for the Palestinian people. Neither the current Israeli government nor the current political leadership representing Palestinians can be trusted, on its own, to guarantee equal protection, property rights and democratic governance for all in the region.

That reality has made me a consistent supporter of providing defensive articles to Israel, while also insisting on accountability for Israeli citizens and elected officials who violate Israeli and international law in the West Bank and Gaza. It also requires elevating and partnering with more moderate voices in Israeli civil society.

Regarding a future Palestinian state, I consistently support humanitarian aid to address the needs of the Palestinian people, ensuring that assistance and basic necessities are not dependent on the policies of the Netanyahu government.

I support strengthening institutions that enable Palestinians to exercise self-determination. There must also be accountability for Palestinians who violate international law, along with ongoing efforts to promote more moderate voices in Palestinian civil society.