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: Marena Lin
Current job title: Climate scientist
Age: 39
Political party affiliation: Democratic
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: None
City where you reside: Porter Ranch
Campaign website or social media: marenalinforcongress.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.)
1. Immigration reform: I would introduce appropriations riders to abolish ICE and immigrant detention and fold immigration enforcement back into the same agency as immigration services, the way it was under INS before 2003.
Separating enforcement from services created an agency with no institutional brake, whose budget has ballooned to $29 billion while the asylum backlog has grown to over 3.3 million cases. I would redirect funding from detention (which costs taxpayers over $100 per detainee per night to warehouse people) toward actually processing cases. A functioning system is better border security than a punitive one.
2. Climate and environment: I would fight to restore the IRA’s clean energy incentives that the OBBBA killed: the 30% solar credit, EV incentives, and efficiency rebates that created over 300,000 jobs and $115 billion in investment before being gutted. Our district has experienced the consequences of environmental negligence firsthand: the 2015 Porter Ranch gas leak, ongoing contamination from the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, and the 2025 wildfires that destroyed thousands of homes while FEMA covered just 7% of damage costs. I would update the Green New Deal to address AI and crypto’s exploding energy demand: Data centers consumed 4.4% of U.S. electricity in 2023, projected to triple by 2028.
3. Medicare for All. The OBBBA cut Medicaid for millions while the top 10% of earners saw incomes rise 2.7%. I would co-sponsor Medicare for All legislation and fight to repeal the OBBBA’s healthcare cuts immediately through standalone legislation.
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.)
Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to define or change regulations for federal elections. Verification of voter identity and citizenship is essential to election integrity, but the SAVE Act is unconstitutional. Instead of addressing non-citizen voting – fewer than 70 cases over 40 years by the Heritage Foundation’s own database – the SAVE Act would make it much harder for an estimated 21 million Americans to vote, preferentially suppressing the votes of women, the elderly, and minorities, thus violating the 14th and 19th amendments.
The SAVE Act would force U.S. citizens to pay money and spend time attempting to obtain new documents to prove a link with their birth certificate, if they were even permitted to be born in a hospital. This is a poll tax, violating the 24th Amendment.
In an election year, this would change the rules in the middle of the game. I am therefore against the SAVE Act and believe that the onus of voter citizenship verification should be on the federal government, rather than the voter. The Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security already know who is a citizen. The federal government should work for the people, not engage in voter suppression.
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 overriding narrative of immigration is that it is a border security problem, but the actual bottleneck is what happens after people arrive. The asylum case backlog, as of February 2026, is over 3 million cases, and rather than designating additional funding to USCIS to address it, the OBBBA instead created an annualized $29 billion ICE budget. We are a country of safe refuge, due process, and civil rights laws. Neither the laws nor our goals are being fulfilled.
I am the daughter of immigrants and the only candidate in this race to have paroled an asylum seeker from months of inhumane ICE detention in 2019. I saw the perversion of taxpayer dollars spent to imprison him (at estimated costs of over $100 a night), to hinder him from contacting his family and advancing his asylum case, and to violate his human rights. The federal government made him dependent on community members by refusing to let him work. He later won his asylum case.
I will fight to abolish ICE and immigrant detention. Neither institution is accountable to U.S. laws. By folding immigration enforcement back into the same agency as immigration services, the way it was in INS before ICE’s inception in 2003, we can solve border security by resolving the immigration processing backlog, therefore removing the incentives for unauthorized crossings. Resolving immigration casework backlogs, from both asylum and work visas, would be good for the economy by bringing in highly skilled workers and removing an underclass of undocumented workers.
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.)
Letters don’t rebuild homes, but congressional tools do. I would first use appropriations amendments to attach wildfire recovery funding to must-pass spending bills. This is the same mechanism Congress used to give ICE $75 billion in the OBBBA. If Congress can find $45 billion to detain immigrants, it can find $34 billion to rebuild American communities. I would build a bipartisan disaster coalition (e.g. California’s fires, Florida’s hurricanes, the Midwest’s tornadoes) because disaster funding should not be partisan, and trading votes across state lines is how these packages have historically passed.
I would use committee hearings to hold FEMA accountable. FEMA has covered just 7% of assessed damage costs for LA fire survivors, which is a third of what it covered after comparable California fires in 2017–2018 or the 2023 Hawaii fires. The average survivor has received roughly $4,100 against $55,000 in assessed damage. Meanwhile, FEMA refused for nearly a year to fund soil testing in Altadena, where 27% of tested sites in the burn zone exceeded California’s residential lead standards. Nearly 96% of destroyed homes in Altadena predated the 1978 lead paint ban. These are children’s health decisions being made by bureaucrats, and Congress has subpoena power for a reason.
I would use the ~$2 million annual Member Representational Allowance to staff caseworkers dedicated to helping fire survivors navigate FEMA and SBA applications. The bureaucracy itself is a barrier, and constituent services are a tool, not a luxury.
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 a full ban on individual stock trading by members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children. Without covering family members, any ban is meaningless.
The current law, the STOCK Act, is a failure. The penalty for a violation is $200. No member of Congress has ever been prosecuted under it. During the 55 days after the 2025 tariff announcement, over 50 members made more than 2,000 trades in companies directly affected by tariff policy. During the 2025 government shutdown, while constituents lost paychecks and SNAP benefits, lawmakers made nearly 200 trades worth millions. The law only documents conflicts of interest. It doesn’t prevent them.
I would co-sponsor the Restore Trust in Congress Act, which bans members, spouses, and dependents from owning or trading individual stocks, securities, commodities, and futures. Members would have 180 days to divest or place assets in a qualified blind trust. A tax deferral provision ensures this doesn’t create a financial barrier to public service.
But a ban is only as good as its enforcement. The body that investigates congressional ethics violations can’t force anyone to cooperate and can be eliminated by a simple vote. I would give it real investigative power and make it permanent under law so no Congress can quietly kill its own watchdog. Penalties must be meaningful, not $200. And the ban must explicitly cover cryptocurrency. Ten members currently hold up to $2 million in crypto assets while voting on crypto legislation.
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. As a climate scientist, I take this seriously, and I know regulation works when it’s designed to protect people rather than punish them.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) proved this. Before the OBBBA gutted it, the IRA created 334,000 clean energy jobs, drove $115 billion in manufacturing investment, and directed those investments disproportionately into lower-income communities, including in districts whose representatives voted against the law. Solar tax credits, EV incentives, and efficiency rebates put money directly in household budgets while reducing emissions. That’s not burdensome. It’s the opposite.
I would fight to restore and expand IRA incentives, including the 30% residential solar credit and EV purchase credits that the OBBBA killed in 2025. These directly reduce energy costs for families and small businesses. For regulation to work without burdening small businesses, it must target the biggest polluters, not the smallest actors.
That includes the tech industry’s rapidly growing footprint. Data centers consumed 4.4% of U.S. electricity in 2023 and that could triple by 2028. AI-optimized servers alone will consume nearly five times more electricity by 2030. Crypto mining is a significant driver. The Green New Deal must be updated to address this: tech companies that are driving massive new energy demand should pay for the infrastructure and environmental costs they impose, through mechanisms like an AI consumption tax on enterprise-level services, rather than passing those costs onto ratepayers and communities.
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.)
No.
The Department of Defense budget request already exceeds $1 trillion annually. The United States already spends more on its military than the next nine highest-spending countries combined. Despite this, the Pentagon has never passed a comprehensive audit. Before Congress approves a single additional dollar, we should be demanding a full accounting of where current dollars are going and whether they are actually making Americans safer or simply enriching defense contractors.
Under what specific circumstances do you believe the U.S. should engage in a war? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
War should be an absolute last resort. Before any military action, we should be required to demonstrate that every diplomatic and economic avenue has been exhausted. War is justified when there is a direct, verified threat to American lives, territory, or sovereignty. It is justified to honor binding treaty obligations to allies facing armed aggression, because our alliances only function if they are credible. And it may be justified in response to documented genocide or mass atrocities when the United States can act effectively as part of an international coalition, with clear objectives and an exit strategy.
What does not justify war is speculative intelligence about future threats, the protection of corporate or resource interests dressed up as national security, or the belief that American military power can remake other societies. The United States has been in a state of nearly continuous military engagement for over two decades: trillions of dollars spent, thousands of American lives lost, hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, destabilized regions, and refugee crises that ripple across the globe. We cannot credibly advocate for international human rights while sending weapons to Israel while they are committing genocide.
Any decision to go to war must meet a clear standard: congressional authorization, defined objectives, a realistic plan for withdrawal, and an honest accounting of the costs, in dollars, in American lives, and in the civilian lives of people in the countries where we fight.
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. The Constitution is unambiguous on this point: the power to declare war belongs to Congress, not the president. That design was intentional; the Founders understood that the decision to send Americans into harm’s way should require deliberation by the representatives closest to the people who will bear the consequences.
Over decades, presidents of both parties have eroded this principle, using broad authorizations like the 2001 AUMF, now nearly 25 years old, to justify military operations that Congress never specifically debated or approved. The result is that we have engaged in sustained military action across multiple countries with little meaningful congressional accountability. Worse, the absence of rigorous congressional oversight has allowed the United States to provide military support to operations where credible allegations of war crimes, genocide, and systematic human rights violations have emerged.
The fix is straightforward: Congress should repeal outdated authorizations for the use of military force and reassert its constitutional role by requiring specific, time-limited approvals for any sustained military engagement. Members of Congress who vote to send troops overseas should have to put their name on that decision and face their constituents for it. Right now, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has a moral responsibility to force a vote on the Iran War Powers Resolution, to end the war now and document those decisions.
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 consistently fulfilled its obligation, and the failure has been starkly asymmetric between the two parties.
During the Biden administration, Congress functioned largely as designed. Republicans used their House majority to conduct oversight hearings, challenge spending priorities, and force negotiations on the debt ceiling and appropriations. Democrats pushed back on policy through the legislative process. Whether you agreed with the outcomes or not, the machinery of checks and balances was operating.
Under the current administration, there are no checks or balances. Congressional Republicans have abdicated their oversight role, deferring to executive authority on spending, refusing to meaningfully scrutinize executive orders that test constitutional boundaries, and treating oversight not as an institutional obligation but as a partisan weapon to be wielded selectively. The House has been more focused on investigating the prior administration and retribution than on holding the current one accountable for how it is spending taxpayer money and exercising power right now. When members of Congress treat loyalty to a president as more important than their constitutional duty, they are not serving their constituents. They are beholden to one person.
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, Congress should act. The goal should be protecting kids by design, not only banning them from platforms.
Age verification mandates alone are blunt instruments that raise serious privacy concerns and are easily circumvented. More effective is shifting the burden onto the platforms themselves, which have engineered their products to maximize engagement in ways that are particularly harmful. Congress should require platforms to disable addictive design features (e.g. autoplay, infinite scroll, push notifications, algorithmic recommendation of increasingly extreme content) for all users under 16 by default.
Congress should also mandate transparency. Platforms should be required to share anonymized data with independent researchers so we can actually measure the impact of design choices on youth, instead of just relying on the companies’ own claims. We are making policy in the dark because platforms have fought to keep their data proprietary. Restrictions alone are insufficient without investment. Congress should fund digital literacy programs in schools and support for parents navigating an environment that is evolving faster than any family can keep up with on their own.
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 is declining. California’s property crime rate is at its lowest since 1985, and violent crime fell 5.3% in 2024. But the feeling of insecurity persists. That gap has identifiable causes, and none of them are solved by more policing or more surveillance.
LAPD has cost Los Angeles $384 million in misconduct settlements since 2019: excessive force, civil rights violations, and illegal searches. The department racked up $100 million in liability payouts in fiscal year 2024 alone, pushing the city’s reserves to dangerously low levels. These payouts come from the General Fund, draining money from fire response, infrastructure, and services that actually prevent harm. A $3.2 billion police budget is not producing safety. It’s producing liability.
Meanwhile, the city is expanding surveillance through 80,000+ Flock AI-powered license plate readers. These are cameras that have been caught sharing data with ICE in violation of California law. South Pasadena has already voted to remove them. A class action lawsuit was filed in February 2026. Surveillance that feeds a deportation machine doesn’t make communities safer. It makes a third of our district afraid to leave the house.
The perception of rising crime is driven by media saturation and political exploitation. The evidence-based answer to violent crime is community violence intervention (CVI): trained outreach workers who de-escalate conflicts before they turn deadly. These programs have shown reductions in violence from Sacramento to Chicago, but the Trump administration cut $169 million in federal CVI funding. I would fight to restore and expand it.
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. Without term limits, incumbents risk growing out of touch with local and emerging issues. They become entrenched by special interest groups like AIPAC and enormous campaign war chests, and it is easy to see how they lose imagination and motivation for solving problems. One can see the entrenchment of incumbents remaining an issue with the rise of AI and crypto super PACs.
I would support a maximum of 12 years (six terms) in the House. This provides enough time to develop expertise and deliver results, while ensuring regular turnover and accountability to the communities members represent.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I longboard skateboard!