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: Angela Gonzales-Torres
Current job title: Advocate for Justice
Age: 31
Political party affiliation: Democratic
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: Former Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council, Former Regional Representative on Metro’s PSAC (Public Safety Advisory Council)
City where you reside: Highland Park, Los Angeles
Campaign website or social media: angela4congress.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.)
The top three issues impacting Californians right now are the rising cost of living, attacks on immigrant and working communities, and endless spending on war instead of investing at home. To address these challenges, on day one, I would sign on to the Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act, the Abolish Super PACs Act, and the Block the Bombs Act, because these measures would immediately help to alleviate the burden on thousands of people today.
Looking ahead, I would introduce the Overcoming Recidivism Act to address inequality and economic instability at its roots. Today, about 65% of formerly or currently incarcerated people lack a high school diploma, and access to education dramatically reduces recidivism — down to 55% with vocational training, 13.7% with an associate degree, and even lower with higher education. This proposal would fund two to four years of free housing, vocational training, and on-site wraparound services for system-impacted students and those in recovery. Too many of these students are currently forced to live in their cars while trying to rebuild their lives. By providing housing and education, this bill would create a pathway to long-term employment, reduce recidivism, and strengthen our communities. For every dollar invested in a prison education program, it will save taxpayers between $4-5 in incarceration costs.
This is how we invest in people, lower costs, and build safer, more equitable communities across California.
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 federal government’s role should be used to protect and expand voting rights, not restrict them. In the case of requiring proof of citizenship to vote, the key question is whether this actually strengthens election participation or creates unnecessary barriers. If it risks disenfranchising eligible voters, particularly working people or immigrant communities, then the federal government has a responsibility to step in and prevent that harm. In my view, my role as a lawmaker would be not just to vote on policy, but to be a megaphone. That means making sure people know their rights, elevating the voices of those most affected, and pushing back when proposals threaten access to the ballot.
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.)
The federal government should be focused on keeping families together.
I have worked in providing free immigration legal services to students, staff, and faculty at various community colleges and supported the Opportunity for All campaign, fighting to ensure everyone has access to employment opportunities at universities regardless of citizenship status. I have seen what is possible when we act with care. We can build a government that invests in dignity over detention, compassion over cruelty, and justice over fear. I will work to ensure safety for every immigrant and mixed-status household, providing a clear pathway to citizenship for all undocumented individuals.
Protections for asylum seekers and an end to the criminalization of migration must be central, because seeking safety is a human right. My immigration policy calls for ending the expansion of detention centers, shutting down private immigration prisons, and redirecting resources toward legal services and community-based support.
Expanding access to essential services for mixed-status families like my own, including healthcare, housing, and education, as well as investing in workforce development and ESL programs are critical. I will fight for federal policies that reflect fairness and inclusion, ensuring CA-34’s immigrant communities are empowered, protected, and fully able to immerse themselves in society.
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.)
I think this is the perfect scenario to say this is the difference between me and any other candidate in this race, because I am not waiting for Congress to act; I do what I can now.
After the fires in Altadena and the Palisades, I jumped into action through community cleanups, supporting donation centers at Pasadena City College, East Los Angeles Women’s Center, and in Highland Park, and advocating every day for relief for small businesses buried in utility debt. That should have been low-hanging fruit for Congress to address, especially when those same small businesses were feeding our first responders while electeds like Gavin Newsom and Donald Trump were doing just fine. As of completing this questionnaire, yesterday, I was back in Skid Row, listening to stories of neglect experienced during the fires, because it is important that we don’t forget. A year later, I am still working with local businesses to rebuild, residents to recover, and students inspired by incarcerated firefighters stepping up to protect our communities. We took that moment to also fight for fair wages for incarcerated firefighters.
Too often, candidates talk about what they will do. I am sharing what I have done and what I am doing now, because that is what I will continue to do. I’m not writing letters. I’m pushing for funding by organizing, building coalitions, and elevating community-led solutions like public banking and emergency grant initiatives. In Congress, I will fight to block must-pass legislation until relief is delivered and ensure our communities are never ignored again.
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.)
There is no debate here for me. I support banning members of Congress and their families from trading individual stocks because it is a clear conflict of interest. No one should use public office for personal gain, especially financial gain. People and the planet must simply come before profit.
In office, I would uphold that standard, and I am proud to have already taken the Political Integrity Pledge, committing to: no corporate PAC money, a stock trading ban, closing the revolving door, and overturning Citizens United. I would support legislation that protects our democracy, and I believe the lack of holding members of Congress accountable for undermining it is an insult to the American people. We need stronger disclosure requirements and independent oversight to ensure accountability, and I would work to ensure that. Restoring trust in government starts with ending conflicts of interest and making it clear that elected officials serve the people, not their personal interests.
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.)
I support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions. I’m proud to be working with the authors of the Green New Deal, where I’ve learned firsthand the benefits of “green jobs”—moving away from fossil fuel industries, retrofitting homes and the power sector to renewable energy sources, expanding public transit by investing in high-speed rails, upgrading the electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, and lowering energy costs for families while promoting sustainable agriculture.
It is absolutely crucial to ensure these policies don’t become overly burdensome on small businesses or lower-income families. In districts like mine, which have some of the dirtiest air in the county and the highest levels of environmental injustice, pollution is a public health crisis and the urgency is high.
Our climate action plan consists of fighting for a Green New Deal that centers our most impacted communities, invests in renewable energy infrastructure, and creates pathways and funding for initiatives like community gardens, more parks, and protecting our green, open spaces. To fund this, I would work for large-scale public investment, fair taxation on corporations and the wealthy, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, and generating new revenue through job creation. On a federal level, I would support providing grants and subsidies to help small businesses transition to cleaner practices, and investing in community solar programs that lower energy costs for both renters and homeowners.
Our approach prioritizes community-led climate solutions that create opportunity and promote local biodiversity in CA-34.
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 would not support increasing military spending.
I would push to reduce the Pentagon budget, audit defense spending, and fight to reinvest those dollars into healthcare, housing, education, and climate resiliency because our future depends on it and future generations will live with the consequences of our decisions today.
The reality is that our current military spending is putting the American people and our national security in harm’s way. It fuels global tension and diverts resources away from our basic needs. I think there is a lapse in education that I’ve been working to expand and would help amplify in Congress, which is that I think there is a permanent war economy that benefits weapons manufacturers more than strategic defense. U.S. defense appropriations in the past fiscal year (2026) topped roughly $900 billion, including about $8 billion more than the Pentagon even requested, and Congress has added over $100 billion in unrequested weapons programs in recent years, often without transparency, public input, or debate.
I would immediately bring attention to the National Defense Authorization Act and the recent votes to increase military spending, including weapons funding that supports foreign entities instead of protecting Americans at home. Americans are not safer when the interests or safety of another foreign entity come first. I would work to ensure military spending is accountable, strategic, and aligned with real national security, not corporate profit.
Under what specific circumstances do you believe the U.S. should engage in a war? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
To start: I was born into the Chicano movement of East L.A., formed from protesting the unfair drafting of Black and Brown individuals for the Vietnam War. Upon my visit to Vietnam in my early 20s, I learned that their history books and museums call it “the D.C. War” because they knew that Americans widely protested it back then. One of my earliest memories is standing with my mother at peaceful demonstrations in DTLA against the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions that claimed so many lives in my neighborhood.
War should be an absolute last resort. I don’t believe that any Angeleno or American is safer due to the recent U.S. military actions. Polling shows only one-third of Americans support Trump’s attack on Venezuela, around 60% of voters do not want U.S. military involvement in Iran, and a majority of voters prefer we support humanitarian aid in Gaza over military aid to Israel. That proves to me that Americans want to invest in and prioritize diplomacy, international cooperation, and peace-building, not military force.
I do not believe the U.S. should engage in war when no imminent threat to human life has been determined. In Congress, I would prioritize rejoining and strengthening the United Nations, from which Trump has largely withdrawn the U.S. I believe in advancing a pro‑peace foreign policy that emphasizes humanitarian aid and conflict resolution.
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.)
Absolutely. Congress needs to approve any and all military action. The Constitution makes Congress, not any one president, responsible for declaring war. That authority has been abused for too long, and the people have paid the price. We quite literally cannot afford more military action overseas, and most Americans do not consent to it.
Reasserting congressional war powers is essential not only to prevent unnecessary human suffering but also because unauthorized conflicts undermine our democratic processes. Reinforcing congressional authority and accountability for those who overstep it is one of my top priorities.
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. During the past two administrations, Congress has too often failed to act as a check under both Democratic and Republican leadership. We’ve seen unchecked executive power in areas like forcing Americans into war, immigration enforcement, and spending priorities that neglect housing and education.
Under the Biden administration, there was clear public pressure for a ceasefire in Gaza, yet Congress largely failed to assert its authority over arms transfers. Now, the overstepping of Congress is even worse with Republicans. They are failing to pass meaningful war powers legislation and to rein in Trump’s cruelty and chaos, dragging the country into conflict we did not consent to.
Fulfilling this obligation means Congress must be willing to challenge any administration, regardless of party, through the budgetary, legislative and oversight processes. That is why progressive Democrats like myself are running and working together during our campaigning to challenge the establishment on both sides of the aisle and reassert congressional authority.
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.)
I am aware of the conversation happening in our communities and in the courts, including recent cases in New Mexico and Los Angeles (March 2026), where Meta platforms were found to be harming children.
We know social media can cause social harm.
I support Congress adopting such restrictions to protect young people’s mental and physical health and to stop platforms from inappropriately collecting and weaponizing sensitive data. Following the lead of parents demanding meaningful change, I would push for thoughtful safeguards, including strong data privacy protections, eliminating addictive design features, and demanding full transparency around algorithms.
Right now, I am working with educators who are trying to limit phone use and reduce technological distractions in the classroom, while also promoting the expansion of mental health resources and digital literacy education for college students. I would support scaling these efforts at the federal level so this cultural shift is both effective and sustainable.
My goal is to support parents, teachers, and young people by making platforms safer, holding corporations accountable, and still respecting young people’s ability to connect, learn, and organize. In Congress, if our communities urge me to call for an age restriction for social media usage, I am open to advocating for that. Right now, we are working hard to make sure that Congress takes the immediate, decisive actions to hold companies accountable for knowingly exploiting our young people.
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.)
Firstly, I want to acknowledge that many Angelenos and Californians feel like we have not been able to emotionally process or financially recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, and that public safety feels especially distant since then. Even as crime declines overall, I acknowledge that many experienced increases in 2021 and that trust in policing has dropped.
As an advocate for equity and justice, I know education is key to overcoming recidivism and feeling safe in one’s own neighborhood, and as a former representative of Metro’s Public Safety Advisory Committee, I do understand that some people appreciate law enforcement on our transit system, for example.
But in Congress, I will continue the work of addressing the nuances around this important issue and fighting to address housing instability, poverty, and disinvestment because even if crime is declining, people don’t feel safe due to underlying issues rooted in a lack of resources and accountability. I will promote and advance mental health services, gang prevention programs, and a federal minimum wage, because we know real safety comes from stability and opportunity, and I will continue the work to expand those in Congress.
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.)
I think it’s important to understand why there are currently no term limits for House members, which, by the way, are up for reelection every two years. The House was designed to be the body closest to the people, providing consistency and accountability for a president’s total term of up to eight years.
But at the same time, I believe we are in this battle over authoritarianism because some members of Congress have been in office longer than I’ve even been alive. Many of our student volunteers are shocked when they learn that Nancy Pelosi, former speaker of the House, for example, was in Congress for 38 years. That’s way too long.
I support term limits. I think 12–15 years in the House is acceptable. Some current members have shown us that strong leadership and meaningful progress can happen within a decade, but I’m running for Congress because, unfortunately, here in Los Angeles, we haven’t seen that urgency. At the same time, term limits alone won’t fix a system controlled by corporate money. We also need to ban corporate PAC contributions, create just campaign finance laws, and prevent members of Congress from trading stocks.
Californians deserve a government that truly respects our values and reflects the courage of our people. Term limits are one way we can help deliver positive change.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I guess a hidden talent of mine is skateboarding. I grew up skating, and it’s something that’s always stayed with me — not just as a form of transportation or hobby, but as a way to connect with others. I love supporting local skate shops and watching how our skate culture, parks, and community spaces continue to evolve. Especially as more women get involved.
But I’m not skating as much these days, mostly because I don’t have healthcare. However, when we achieve Medicare for All, I’ll be back at it trying to get my pop shove-it down!