Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: Anna Wilding
Current job title: Senior White House Correspondent, Director, Producer, Business Owner
Age: 59
Political party affiliation: Democratic
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: None
City where you reside: West Hills
Campaign website or social media: AnnaWildingforCongress.com
From voter ID to war powers and from immigration to tariffs, Congress has tackled many issues over the past year. What do you, though, see as the top three issues impacting Californians, and what specifically could you do as a lawmaker to address these issues? (Please answer in 250 words or less, and keep your response to future proposals.)
Housing: California’s housing crisis is urgent. I will introduce legislation to stop large corporations from buying up family homes and rental properties, enforce caps on excessive rent increases, and convert underutilized properties into housing. I will remove tax breaks for landlords who deliberately keep units empty. I will hold Silicon Valley accountable and establish banks and grants to support those hit hardest by housing costs. Our homes should not be corporate commodities.
Economy and Cost of Living: The cost of living is unsustainable. Families are choosing between rent, food, and basic needs. I will lower costs and hold powerful interests accountable. I am actively pushing for H.R. 5356, the National Infrastructure Bank Act, to enable immediate investment in clean energy and manufacturing through my 9-point plan, creating good-paying jobs in our district. I will also use it to support and retrain industries like film and media disrupted by monopoly mergers and AI. Economic growth must work for people, not just those at the top.
Public Safety and Crime Prevention: I support strong, community-based policing that builds trust. Bring out the ice cream truck. Get to know our neighborhoods in our district. From my time covering the Obama administration, I saw how this works. Training officers and old-fashioned community policing. I do not support defunding the police. I support proper training, education, and meaningful outreach. We must give young people pathways to opportunity. I will strengthen disaster preparedness and invest in infrastructure to protect communities from fires, earthquakes, and emergencies. Every community deserves to feel safe.
Speaking of voter ID, the president has implored Congress to approve legislation that would require people to show proof of citizenship in order to vote. What role do you believe the federal government plays in telling states how to conduct their own elections, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections, and also empowers Congress to protect voting rights and set national standards. That balance matters, and it must work for voters.
I believe in expanding access to the ballot while protecting the integrity of our elections. Only U.S. citizens should vote in federal elections; that is the law. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the standard is enforced effectively and fairly.
The question is how we do that. Burdensome voter ID or documentation requirements can unintentionally block eligible voters, including seniors and those with health concerns. Most legal citizens should have access to the required ID. However, we should not create barriers that silence even a small percentage of lawful voters. On the other hand, those who can should make sure their paperwork is in order. The government should have the technology to know who is a lawful voter. You must be a citizen to vote, so common sense must prevail.
The federal government should modernize and take responsibility for secure systems, using existing databases, improving verification processes, and supporting states with accurate, updated voter rolls.
We can protect election integrity and expand access at the same time. A strong democracy ensures that every eligible citizen can vote, and that the system is trusted, secure, and fairly enforced.
What, in your opinion, should the federal government focus on when it comes to immigration policy? For example, do you place a priority on border security, visas for high-skilled workers, refuge for asylum seekers, etc., and why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I am the only first-generation immigrant in this race. I came here legally over 30 years ago, alone. I understand the system firsthand. I know the visa process. I know how it can be improved. ICE must be restructured, reformed, retrained, and held accountable with proper oversight now. I am the only candidate who has spoken directly to Tom Homan about unacceptable conditions. Immigration policy must be rooted in dignity, humanity, and the rule of law.It is time for a balanced system that honors safety and compassion. We must secure our borders while ensuring lawful due process. A just immigration system strengthens our economy, our communities, our moral standing in the world. We must keep America safe and kind.
We must respect those who have made significant sacrifices to immigrate legally, while also expanding practical pathways for essential workers, including agricultural and other critical professions. This aligns with successful policies used in other countries. At the same time, we must honor due process and our commitments to those already in the system who followed the law. Enforcement must be fair, humane, and consistent with American values.
I will work to modernize and fix our immigration system so it is lawful, efficient, and humane and keeps America safe, strong, and compassionate. It is not that hard to write a new visa. Some communities are definitely underserved with visas. I will create more, revise others, and possibly do away with those that are not critical right now.
It’s been over a year since Gov. Gavin Newsom asked the federal government for supplemental disaster aid to help Southern California communities rebuild after the devastating Palisades and Eaton wildfires, but neither President Donald Trump nor Congress has acted. What would you do to push for the funding, besides writing letters to the Trump administration or the leaders of Congress? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
It is no secret that there are serious questions about where funding has gone under Gov. Newsom’s watch, and there is also no question that the Trump administration has not acted as forcefully as it could. With concerns, this has not been a win-win situation for the people who need help most.
In the wake of efforts to diminish FEMA, I would take immediate action. I have already proposed to the Trump administration an independent fire recovery fund, administered by a neutral third party, to ensure transparency, accountability, and speed.
I also led through the nonprofit I founded in one of the largest earthquake zones per capita, involving one of the largest insurance claim environments. I understand how this works and how it will unfold. You cannot litigate your way out of a national disaster; this requires coordinated town planning, cleanup, and enforcement. We are facing major delays with permits, reconstruction, and environmental cleanup. I am already working with my coalition of environmental and ocean partners to identify funding solutions, including the NIB Act, and accelerate cleanup efforts addressing toxic debris affecting our coastline.
As a lawmaker, I will push for emergency appropriations tied to strict oversight, bring together federal, state, and local agencies to cut through red tape, and demand clear timelines for rebuilding. This cannot be left to bureaucracy or politics.
I will use every tool available policy, oversight, and direct engagement to ensure funding reaches communities quickly, safely, and transparently.
Do you support a ban or restriction on congressional lawmakers and their families from buying or selling individual stocks? Why or why not? And what would you propose to ensure lawmakers aren’t using their positions to engage in insider trading? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes. I support strict limits on congressional stock trading. Members of Congress should not be trading individual stocks while making policy that affects markets.
At a minimum, investments should be limited to diversified funds, blind trusts, or capped instruments like bonds. Public office is not for personal financial gain.
I support banning individual stock trading for lawmakers and their immediate families while in office, with a short transition period to comply. If assets are kept, they should be placed in blind trusts with no control.
We also need real enforcement. That means timely disclosure of trades, meaningful penalties for violations, and independent oversight. Congress should not police itself.
Technology can help flag suspicious trading and increase transparency.
We also need to get corporate funding out of elections. That means overturning Citizens United, moving toward partially publicly funded elections, and putting real caps on campaign spending, as other countries do.
I have also signed the Short-Term Congressional Limits pledge, supporting term limits of around three terms.
This is about trust. People need to know decisions in Congress are made for the public, not personal profit.
Clear rules. Strong enforcement. No exceptions.
Do you support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions? If so, how would you ensure those regulations aren’t overly burdensome on small businesses or lower-income families? And if not, how do you propose lawmakers protect the environment and curtail the impacts of climate change? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes. I support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions, but they have to actually work. Right now, there is too much bureaucracy and not enough results.
This is not theoretical. Global temperatures have already risen by about 1.2°C, and sea levels are rising at roughly 3 to 4 millimeters per year. There are already Pacific island communities facing relocation due to rising ocean waters. This is happening now. Governments must be prepared to respond, including planning for climate displacement and humanitarian pathways.
Here is how we solve it: scale clean energy, modernize infrastructure, and cut emissions at the source. We must bring in regulations capping emissions from big oil, clean up Superfund sites, and make sure our neighborhoods are safe from harmful emissions.
I work with coalition partners and environmental groups doing real work on the ground. They need direct funding, not layers of government slowing them down. Washington cannot keep announcing plans while communities wait.
My husband has already been involved in significant large-scale military cleanups. I know what needs to be done.
We also have to be practical. Regulations cannot crush small businesses or working families. I will push for grants, tax incentives, and transition support so businesses can adapt. Clean energy should bring costs down, not push them up.
Accountability must be tied to funding. If projects do not move, funding shifts.
We need action, not delay. Enforce standards. Cut red tape. Fund results.
President Donald Trump has significantly increased spending for the U.S. Department of Defense. Would you, as a member of Congress, approve additional dollars for the military if the president were to ask for more funding? How would you ensure that any military spending does not end up putting the American people or national security in harm’s way? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I can tell you two things right now: Both the president’s Energy and Defense departments require real oversight and accountability.
I support a strong military. National security is not optional. But I will not approve additional funding without clear justification, transparency, and a defined strategy. More spending must translate into real capability, readiness, and deterrence—not waste.
Defense is one of our biggest exports, but it must be fair and responsible, and any war must go through Congress under the War Powers Act.
We must see proper plans tied to outcomes, especially in a world with rising global threats. At the same time, we cannot allow unchecked budgets or contractor-driven priorities to dictate policy.
The Pentagon must return to greater transparency, including reopening access for journalists and restoring public accountability. The American people deserve to know how their money is being spent.
We also need enforceable oversight—independent audits, clear benchmarks, and accountability before and after funds are allocated. Defense and energy spending must both be aligned with national security priorities.
Most of all, I want to see diplomatic efforts as the first priority through meaningful dialogue and peace rather than war.
We must support our service members with the equipment, training, and leadership they need to succeed and stay safe, while avoiding unnecessary conflicts.
I will support funding that strengthens America’s security and global leadership but only with discipline, oversight, and accountability.
Under what specific circumstances do you believe the U.S. should engage in a war? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
As events in the Middle East unfold, we are seeing what happens when war powers bypass Congress. That must stop. We must enforce our laws. War should always be the last resort. I prefer no war. But every nation has the right to defend itself.
If force is ever required, it must pass through Congress under the War Powers Act. We should reduce the current 60-day justification timeline to 10 days. When lives are on the line, we need urgency with accountability. Ten days ensures immediate congressional oversight.
The United States should only engage in war under clear and limited circumstances: direct defense of the nation, protection of American lives, or in response to a legitimate, imminent threat when all other options have been exhausted.
We must prioritize peace through diplomacy first—through meaningful dialogue, coalition-building, and new pathways to resolution. Too often, diplomacy is treated as secondary when it should be the first line of defense.
War carries profound human, economic, and global consequences. It must not be entered into without a clear objective, defined strategy, and exit plan.
We have a responsibility to support our allies and uphold stability, but not through open-ended conflicts without accountability.
Any military action must be lawful, targeted, necessary, and transparent.
My position is simple: exhaust every diplomatic option first. If force is used, it must be justified, limited, and approved by Congress.
Do you believe a president should seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas? Why, or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes.
As events in the Middle East unfold, we are seeing what happens when war powers bypass Congress. That must stop. We must enforce our laws. War should be the last resort. I prefer no war. But every nation has the right to defend itself.
A president must seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas. That is how our system is designed. No exceptions.
If force is used, it must go through Congress under the War Powers Act. The current 60-day window is too long. It should be reduced to 10 days. When lives are on the line, Congress must act immediately. Ten days ensures urgency and accountability.
The United States should only go to war in limited cases: direct defense of the nation, protection of American lives, or a clear, imminent threat when all other options are exhausted.
Diplomacy must come first. Real dialogue, real negotiation, real effort to avoid conflict. War is not the first tool.
War has real costs. Lives, money, long-term consequences. It must have a clear objective and exit plan.
My position is simple: exhaust diplomacy first. If force is used, it must be lawful, limited, and approved by Congress.
Congress, in theory, is supposed to serve as a check on the president through budgetary, legislative and oversight powers. Do you believe Congress has fulfilled that obligation during the past two administrations, with one being a Democrat and the other a Republican? Why or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
No. Congress has not fulfilled its obligation under either administration.
I say that from experience. As a senior White House correspondent, my job was to hold those in power to account. I have done that directly and have led investigative work. Congress is meant to be a coequal branch of government. Too often, it has acted like a bystander. Oversight has been inconsistent, selective, or avoided altogether. Budgetary power has not been used with enough discipline or transparency. That is not acceptable.
Too many career politicians are influenced by donors, special interests, and political calculation instead of focusing on their districts and the people they represent. That is part of why trust in government is so low.
That is one of the reasons I am running for Congress.
That is why I have been endorsed by the Progressive Democratic Club, grounded in practical solutions, not ideology. I am progressive, but I get results. I hold people accountable.
Not only that, entrenched long-term incumbents must retire or be voted out. I have asked Brad Sherman, in the spirit of the Olympics, to pass the torch to me, because this district needs new leadership now, not after another term. That is how leadership should work: new members learn from history, apply the best of it, and leave behind what no longer serves the people. I am ready to lead from day one. I know D.C., I know what action is, and I cannot abide inaction.
Governments around the world are increasingly considering an age ban or other restrictions on social media use among young people, citing mental health and other concerns. Should Congress adopt such restrictions? If so, what specific restrictions do you propose? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes. I support clear restrictions on social media for young people.
Here are the facts:
• Norway is moving to a 15-year minimum age with required age verification.
• Across the EU, lawmakers are pushing for a 16-year minimum age, with access between 13–15 only with parental consent.
• Australia has passed a law banning social media for users under 16, with enforcement and penalties for platforms.
This is where the world is going.
In the age of violent content, algorithmic manipulation, and what was exposed in the Epstein Files, we cannot allow children to be exposed without protection.
I support a minimum age of 16, with real verification not self-reported checkboxes.
For those under that age:
• No targeted advertising.
• No addictive design features.
• Full parental controls.
Platforms must comply or face penalties.
Large social media companies will take a financial hit. That is not the priority. Protecting children is.
Government must also step in with real enforcement systems, secure verification, clear standards, and accountability.
This is not complicated.
Set the age. Enforce it. Protect kids.
Statistically, violent crime rates in California are on the decline, yet residents still don’t feel safe or at ease in their communities. How do you see your role in Congress in addressing the underlying issues that make Californians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Crime statistics and how people feel are not the same thing. Violent crime in California declined about 3% to 4% in 2023, including fewer homicides. But property crime and retail theft remain high. And people see it every day on neighborhood apps, multiple times a day, break-ins, theft, and small crimes that often go unreported. These are still violations of people’s property, and they make people feel unsafe in their own homes.
I support strong, community-based policing. Bring back what works: officers knowing neighborhoods, building relationships, and being visible. Bring out the ice cream truck, get to know families, and rebuild trust. That is real crime prevention.
I do not support defunding the police. I will introduce federal legislation to fund training, education, and community policing standards nationwide, ensuring officers have the skills, resources, and accountability to do their jobs effectively. This includes de-escalation training, community engagement, and modern policing tools tied to results.
We also need funding tied to performance; departments that reduce crime and build trust should receive continued support.
At the same time, we must address root causes, youth programs, job pathways, and mental health services. Overall, we have to fix the economy so crime is not needed in the first place.
Public safety is prevention and response.
People deserve to feel safe, not just in statistics, but in their daily lives.
There are term limits to serve in the California Legislature, but none to serve in Congress. Would you advocate for term limits for House members? Why or why not? If you support term limits, how many years maximum should a House member be allowed to serve? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes. I support term limits for Congress.
I am the only candidate in this race who has signed the U.S. Term Limits pledge and the Equal Rights Amendment pledge. I believe in accountability and structural reform, not just talk.
Career politicians staying in office for decades is part of why Congress is not working the way it should. It creates entrenched power, weak accountability, and distance from the people they represent.
I support term limits of up to nine years in the House, or roughly four to five terms. That is enough time to serve effectively, deliver results, and then make way for new leadership.
We need representatives who meet the moment as it is now, not as it was decades ago. We also need to revise and modernize outdated laws, and long-term incumbents are not doing that.
We need a system where people come to serve, not build lifelong political careers.
Term limits reduce the influence of long-term special interests and bring the focus back to constituents.
I am running because Congress needs new leadership now, not later.
The American people deserve representatives focused on results, not careers.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
A lot of what I do is behind the scenes. That is probably my real hidden talent. I know how to make things happen without needing the spotlight.
I have spent decades in the film industry, where you are constantly juggling moving parts, solving problems in real time, and keeping everything on track under pressure. That translates directly into leadership.
On a lighter note, I can actually juggle. I multitask well, which helps. And yes, I can get my rescue dog to sit, which sometimes feels like the hardest job of all.
But the real answer is this. I bring order to chaos. I can walk into complex situations, figure out what is broken, and get people moving toward solutions.
That is not always visible, but it is effective.
And it is exactly what I will do in Congress.