Kevin's Pillars

How would you address the rising cost of living?

​If elected, I will focus on practical steps that lower costs and expand opportunity. First, I will push for fiscal discipline in Congress, so Washington stops driving inflation through reckless deficit spending. Second, I will fight to unleash Wyoming energy by streamlining permitting, expanding responsible leasing, and reducing unnecessary delays, because affordable energy lowers costs for families and businesses alike. Third, I will support apprenticeships, trade education, and workforce development so more Wyoming people can step into good-paying jobs without unnecessary barriers. Finally, I will back stronger enforcement of antitrust laws in industries like food processing, meatpacking, and health care, where consolidation often drives up prices and hurts both consumers and producers. My goal is simple: make it easier for Wyoming families to build a stable life, keep more of what they earn, and see a future of opportunity here at home.​

Are you a MAGA and do you pledge to support President Trump’s agenda?

​I am not a MAGA.  I am a traditional conservative Republican who puts Wyoming first over a national political agenda.  Wyoming only gets one voice in the US House of Representatives.  This voice needs to be a strong advocate for the people of Wyoming, working for issues that matter to the state.  I support pragmatic, bi-partisan solutions over ideology.  I am a strong leader who will build coalitions through trust relationships and partnerships.  I will work with people who think like me, and those who do not.  Leadership is influence, and building teams with those who are willing to put the needs of Wyoming and the nation first over partisan politics and ideology. What is your position of protecting the Second Amendment of the US Constitution? I am a gun owner and gun rights enthusiast.  I am a sportsman who enjoys hunting, shooting, and especially skeet/trap/ and sporting clays.  I am proud to live in a state that values individual freedoms and honors our constitutional rights.  I believe in constitutional carry as the law for al 50 states. ​

What would you do to address the rising cost of healthcare?

​Healthcare reform must work for Wyoming families, seniors, small businesses, ranchers, and rural communities—not just insurance companies or big-city systems. The Affordable Care Act gave too much power to insurers while failing to control hospital prices, prescription drug costs, paperwork, and high deductibles that leave families insured but unable to afford care. In Congress, I will support patient-centered reforms that protect rural hospitals and clinics, strengthen emergency and maternity care, expand telehealth and mobile care without replacing local providers, and grow Wyoming’s healthcare workforce through loan repayment, training, residency slots, and incentives for those who serve here. I will also fight to lower drug prices, reduce administrative burdens, improve mental health and substance-use treatment close to home, and make coverage more portable and affordable for self-employed workers, energy workers, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses. Wyoming needs provider centric healthcare built around access, affordability, and local control.

​What would you do to address the gridlock in Congress?

​Today, we see a lack of leadership in Congress where members are more concerned with staying inline with party ideology than they are getting meaningful legislative work accomplished.  In my military experience commanding a coalition force in Iraq, I learned that coalitions win in war, and coalitions win in government.  I will demonstrate the leadership to work with people of different views and ideologies to find bipartisan solutions that will work for Wyoming.  When members of Congress tell us that the other side is the reason that they can’t even get a budget passed on time, we must reject that excuse for what it is:  weak leadership.  While we certainly can’t agree on everything, we can come together on individual issues, putting aside hardline positions, and do the hard work to negotiate reasonable compromise and put America, not the party, first. ​

What should be done to reform Congress?

​Congress is broken, and I’m running to help fix it. It is well past time to reform the way Congress does business and earn back the trust of the American people. For too many years, Americans have paid the price for Congress’ lack of discipline and its failure to perform one of its most basic duties: passing sustainable annual budgets that respond to the needs of the country. With the national debt now exceeding $39 trillion, the cost of inaction continues to grow. America is at a crossroads, and the path we choose will shape the economic future we leave to our children and grandchildren. If elected as Wyoming’s Representative to the U.S. House, I will introduce legislation to bring discipline, accountability, and common sense back to the federal budget process and to the way Congress operates. Congress must start living within its means, just as states and American taxpayers are required to do every day. I will prioritize a balanced budget amendment that is accountable to taxpayers and restores discipline to the appropriations process. That means Congress should not go on recess until all appropriations bills are passed by both chambers and sent to the President’s desk by October 1. It also means ending the easy path of continuing resolutions and preventing costly government shutdowns. Congress has become an institution that too often protects career politicians instead of serving the American people. I will work with my colleagues and the President to reform congressional compensation, benefits, financial rules, and tenure so that Congress serves the people—not itself. My reform plan includes:

• No self-approved pay raises: Members of Congress should not be able to vote themselves a pay raise. Any cost-of-living adjustment should be the same as what the rest of the federal workforce receives.

• No special health care perks: Members of Congress should only be eligible for the same health care options they put in place for the American people they serve.

• Stronger stock trading rules: Members of Congress should not be able to purchase new individual stocks and should divest existing individual stock holdings to avoid insider trading and any appearance of impropriety.

• Strict term limits: I support term limits of no more than three two-year terms for House members and two six-year terms for Senate members.

 How would you represent tribal interests the Wind River Indian Reservation that is home to the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes?

​I would represent tribal interests by starting from a simple principle: the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho are sovereign nations, not just another constituency. The federal government has treaty and trust responsibilities that must be honored through meaningful government-to-government consultation before decisions are made—not after. In my federal service, I held tribal consultation on major projects and decisions, with attention to treaty rights, cultural resources, sacred sites, natural resources, and Indigenous knowledge. In Congress, I would continue that approach and make sure tribal leaders have a direct voice on legislation affecting the Wind River Indian Reservation. That includes fighting for reliable funding for Indian Health Service and tribally operated healthcare, behavioral health and substance-use treatment, clean water, broadband, roads, housing, education, public safety, victim services, and economic development. I would also support policies that protect cultural heritage, strengthen tribal courts and law enforcement, respect water and land rights, and reduce federal red tape so tribes can exercise self-determination. Representing Wyoming means representing all of Wyoming, including the first peoples of this land, with respect, consistency, and a willingness to listen.​

What is your position on public lands?

​I am passionate about public lands in Wyoming and do not support the sale of public lands.  I managed 8 million acres of public lands and 13 million acres of mineral estate while leading the High Plains District in Wyoming.  I learned the laws and regulations that impact the people of Wyoming.  I know what works, and I know what needs to be fixed.  I will amend the Federal Land Policy Management Act to give our Governor greater control over major federal actions.  I will amend the National Environment Policy Act to narrow the focus of analysis and expand the use of Categorical Exclusions so that the people Wyoming can understand more clearly the impacts of major federal decisions while streamlining and reducing the costs of this analysis.  In my time in the BLM I expanded public land access by 80,000 acres and ensured that oil and gas, coal, grazing, and recreation powered our economy while preserving the beauty and productivity of the land for future generations. ​

What is your position on rescinding the USFS 2001 Roadless Rule?

I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Wyoming’s 3.26 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas provide vital wildlife habitat, outstanding backcountry recreation, and long-term ecological value. At the same time, we must be honest about the management challenges these areas present, including limits on timber harvest, fuel reduction, and wildfire response. The answer, however, is not to abandon the rule—it is to manage these lands thoughtfully and responsibly, protecting their conservation value while addressing fire risk and forest health where needed.​

What is your position on border security and immigration?

Securing our border is a basic duty of the federal government and essential to protecting our sovereignty, public safety, and rule of law. We need stronger enforcement, modern technology, physical barriers where they make sense, more Border Patrol resources, and a clear message that those who enter illegally or break our laws will be removed and not rewarded. At the same time, Wyoming depends on legal workers in agriculture, energy, construction, hospitality, and small businesses. Our current immigration system is too slow, costly, and complicated for employers who follow the rules. We should fix legal immigration by creating reliable, properly screened pathways for needed workers while requiring background checks, respect for our laws, and accountability. A secure border and a workable legal system are not opposites—they belong together. America is a nation built by legal immigration, but it must be legal, orderly, and controlled.​

How will you stand up for Wyoming’s working people?

Standing up for Wyoming’s working people means more than talking about jobs — it means fighting for the kind of steady, good-paying work that allows families to build a future, support their communities, and take pride in what they do. My record shows that I have done exactly that. As District Manager for the Bureau of Land Management in Casper, I helped move the Converse County Oil and Gas Project across the finish line, authorizing more than 5,000 new wells and supporting thousands of jobs tied to energy production, construction, transportation, maintenance, and local small businesses. In the Powder River Basin, I managed coal leases that produced 1.7 billion tons of coal during my tenure — work that supported some of the best-paying blue-collar jobs in Wyoming and helped keep entire communities strong. Those decisions were not abstract policy choices. They meant paychecks, health benefits, apprenticeships, equipment operators, miners, truck drivers, welders, mechanics, and families who could count on a livelihood. Because I served in public office, that record is open and available: people can see the projects I authorized, the decisions I made, and the industries I fought to keep alive. When special interest groups and the Biden Administration tried to shut down coal and slow the energy industries that provide Wyoming workers with dependable, family-sustaining jobs, I stood up for our workers and our way of life. In Congress, Wyoming workers can count on me to keep doing the same: defending good jobs, protecting the industries that built our state, and making sure working people are heard before Washington makes decisions that affect their livelihoods.​

What is your position on protecting children and supporting parental rights?

While the government and schools have an important role to play in protecting children, engaged moms and dads are the best and ensuring their children have age-appropriate access to TV, media, and internet.  Parents, not politicians, are the appropriate decision-making authority for what is right for their children.  I will support government policy that protects our children while preserving local control and a parental centric approach.  

How will you defend the state of Wyoming’s sovereignty against federal overreach?

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution makes States Rights clear.   It is important to remember that the states created the federal government; the federal government did not create the states.   I served in the Federal Government for 6 years after my military career as a district manager in the BLM in Casper.  I fought the Biden Administration’s attempt to close Powder River Basin coal mining; a clear violation of law.  I will amend the Federal Land Management Policy act to restore the balance intended by the 10th Amendment so that our governor cannot be overridden on major federal decisions in Wyoming.

What is your position on the Trump administration’s cuts to investment in rural water infrastructure?

Wyoming’s rural water systems are not asking for special treatment—they are asking for the basic ability to provide safe, reliable water and wastewater service to the families, ranches, farms, schools, hospitals, and small businesses that keep our communities alive. I agree that the scale of Wyoming’s infrastructure need is far greater than any single federal program can solve on its own. At the same time, I also recognize that programs like USDA Rural Development and the EPA State Revolving Funds have been important tools for Wyoming communities, and many local systems depend on them to make projects possible. My approach would be pragmatic: we should pursue every responsible funding source available while building a stronger long-term state solution that reflects Wyoming’s values of local control, fiscal discipline, and stewardship. If elected, I would work to protect Wyoming’s fair access to existing federal infrastructure programs while also advocating for greater flexibility so rural states like ours are not forced into one-size-fits-all funding models. But I would not stop there. Wyoming should also take a serious look at dedicating a more durable in-state funding stream—using reserves strategically, prioritizing high-need water and wastewater projects, and ensuring that small communities are not left behind simply because they lack the rate base to finance major upgrades on their own. I believe we can be fiscally conservative and still be serious about infrastructure. In fact, failing to act is often the more expensive choice. Deferred maintenance drives up project costs, increases the risk of system failures, and places a heavier burden on future ratepayers and taxpayers. A responsible plan means addressing critical needs early, targeting funds where they will do the most good, and helping rural communities maintain essential services without forcing impossible choices on Wyoming residents.​What is your position on the war in Iran? As a combat veteran, I believe we must think hard before putting U.S. service members in harm’s way. The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief—but it also gives Congress a central role in authorizing and overseeing war. The War Powers Act of 1973 requires the President to:

• Consult with Congress “in every possible instance” before introducing forces into actual or imminent hostilities.

• Report to Congress within 48 hours after introducing forces into hostilities (or situations where hostilities are imminent).

• End hostilities within 60 days unless Congress declares war or provides specific authorization to continue.

Absent that authorization, the law requires the President to terminate the use of force. If this conflict has moved beyond that 60-day window, the administration owes Congress—and the American people—a clear, compelling case for what comes next.Congress should not abdicate its constitutional responsibilities. It should demand answers on strategy, objectives, risks, timelines, and the resources required. The President commands the military; Congress alone can authorize war and appropriate the funding to sustain it. That balance of powers has protected our Republic for 250 years.The next question I hear is: “Why now?” During my time at the Pentagon, I saw firsthand that much of what drives decisions can’t be shared publicly because it would compromise sources and methods. Based on what is publicly available, U.S. leaders appear to have assessed an imminent Iranian threat to the United States or our allies, with Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the central concern. I also believe the United States and Israel judged that Iran’s economic strain and internal instability created a narrow window to impose real costs on the regime and slow its nuclear progress. Israel may have been prepared to act alone; coordinating helped distribute risk and blunt retaliation—especially as Iran’s response spread across multiple countries in the region rather than concentrating solely on Israel.Iran’s leaders have shown they will use violence against their own people to crush dissent. That signals fear, not strength. If there is to be lasting change, it must ultimately come from within Iran—especially from moderate elements able to replace repression with legitimate governance. U.S. and allied military action should remain precise and focused on military targets; civilian casualties will only rally support around the regime.The administration’s challenge now is ending this conflict in a way that achieves clear, realistic objectives. Right now, the end state is not well-defined. “Unconditional surrender” is not credible without a major ground invasion. Regime change is possible, but history suggests another hardline faction could quickly replace the current one. Degrading Iran’s military capabilities is achievable with air and naval power, but dismantling proxy networks and attempting nation-building would either require a successful popular uprising—or sustained forces on the ground to stabilize the country. That kind of long-term nation-building is unwise without broad allied support, a true whole-of-government commitment, and an honest accounting of the costs. If anyone proposes U.S. ground forces in Iran, it should only happen after explicit authorization from Congress—and I believe support for that is, rightly, near zero. The time for tough questions is now. Rising oil prices are already squeezing working families, and Congress has too often shrugged off its duty. In Congress, I will press for answers, demand accountability, and represent the people of Wyoming.  The War in Iran has gone on too long, without the legal authority from Congress, and needs to be ended now.​

What is your position on the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project?

I listened to testimony from rPlus Hydro LLLP before the Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee of the Wyoming Legislature in Casper. I was already familiar with the project from my time at the BLM, but I wanted to take a fresh look at whether this proposal is truly in the best interest of the people of Wyoming. At its core, the project is an energy storage system, not a traditional power plant. rPlus proposes to use off-peak electricity to pump water uphill into a new reservoir, then release that water through turbines when electricity prices are higher and demand is stronger. That can help stabilize the grid and complement intermittent wind and solar generation, particularly across the broader western transmission system. The company has also argued that the project would bring meaningful economic benefits to Wyoming during construction and operation, including temporary construction employment and additional tax revenue for state and local governments. Public reports have described the project as a multi-billion-dollar investment that could create hundreds of construction jobs over four to six years and about 35 permanent positions once operational, while also adding roughly $9 million annually in tax revenue. Those benefits deserve to be acknowledged. Grid reliability matters. Tax revenue matters. Jobs matter. And if this project could deliver those advantages without imposing outsized risks on Wyoming’s natural resources, it would deserve serious consideration. But the strongest case against this project is that Wyoming would be asked to bear the environmental risk while a significant share of the systemwide benefit would flow elsewhere. This is not simply a debate about whether pumped storage is useful in theory. The real question is whether this particular open-loop design, in this particular location, is a prudent trade for Wyoming. The project’s most serious unresolved concern is its potential effect on the Miracle Mile and the broader North Platte system. Because the proposal relies on an open-loop configuration that uses Seminoe Reservoir as the lower reservoir, critics and state officials have raised concerns about downstream water temperature, turbidity, and water quality. Those are not minor technical issues. The Miracle Mile is one of Wyoming’s premier trout fisheries, and its value is ecological, recreational, and economic. Once a fishery like that is degraded, restoring it is difficult, expensive, and uncertain. State and federal review documents have specifically identified possible changes in water quality, fish entrainment and loss, and effects on the downstream blue-ribbon trout fishery as central issues in the licensing process. The same is true for wildlife. The Ferris-Seminoe bighorn sheep herd is widely regarded as one of the healthiest and most important herds in Wyoming, and state wildlife officials have warned that years of continuous blasting, tunneling, truck traffic, and year-round disturbance in crucial habitat could have lasting consequences. Their concern is not just temporary disruption. It is that displacement, chronic stress, reduced reproduction, and long-term population decline could occur in a herd that has exceptionally high value to Wyoming. When the state’s own wildlife experts are warning that mitigation may not fully offset those risks, that should carry real weight in the public debate. That is why the argument against the project should not be framed as opposition to development or opposition to energy infrastructure. It is a narrower and more credible argument than that: Wyoming should not accept a project whose design appears to place a world-class fishery, a premier bighorn sheep herd, and a recreation-based economy at risk unless the environmental uncertainties are genuinely resolved first. If the only way to make the economics work is to choose a design that transfers more risk to Wyoming’s land, water, and wildlife, then the state has every reason to push back. In my view, the open-loop design is the central problem. If a closed-loop design were feasible and if enforceable measures could protect key wildlife habitat, the project would look very different. But as proposed, the burden of proof should remain on the developer and the federal licensing process to show that Wyoming’s resources will not be permanently diminished. Hope, modeling, and after-the-fact mitigation are not enough when the assets at issue are this valuable and this difficult to replace. There is also a broader policy question here. Wyoming residents and elected officials understandably want a meaningful voice when a federally licensed project could reshape an important landscape, affect wildlife, and alter the use of treasured public resources for decades. Even those who support faster permitting for major infrastructure should be able to agree on this much: speed should not come at the expense of state input, transparent analysis, and genuine accountability to the communities that will live with the consequences.

So is this project worth it for Wyoming?

At this stage, I do not believe the answer is yes. The potential revenue and temporary construction activity are real advantages, but they do not automatically outweigh the possibility of lasting damage to fisheries, wildlife, water quality, and recreation. Wyoming should insist on a higher standard before accepting those tradeoffs. If that means fighting for stronger conditions, a better design, or ultimately opposing the project altogether, that is a reasonable position grounded not in ideology, but in stewardship and common sense.​

What is your position on wind and solar energy in Wyoming?

Wyoming is an energy state, an agriculture state, a wildlife state, and a state defined by wide-open spaces. My position on wind and solar starts there: energy development should strengthen Wyoming communities, respect private property rights, protect our landscapes and wildlife, and keep Wyoming—not Washington, D.C. or out-of-state interests—in control of our future. I do not support large, utility-scale wind or solar projects on Wyoming state or federal lands when they industrialize the landscape, disrupt habitat and migration corridors, strain local infrastructure, or undermine the legacy industries that have powered our schools, roads, counties, and state budget for generations. Wyoming produces far more energy than it consumes and remains one of America’s most important energy suppliers, especially through coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium. We should be proud of that strength and build on it. At the same time, I strongly support private landowner rights. If a Wyoming landowner chooses to pursue wind or solar on private land, can meet county and state permitting requirements, secures a real grid interconnection agreement, and takes responsibility for reclamation and impacts, I will defend that landowner’s right to make decisions about their property. But private property rights should not become a blank check for forced transmission corridors, federal overreach, or projects that leave local communities carrying the costs while outside developers take the benefits. My priority is an all-of-Wyoming energy strategy rooted in reliability, affordability, jobs, and local control. I would rather see Wyoming lead in advanced and small modular nuclear energy, carbon capture, uranium, coal technologies, natural gas, and expanded markets for Wyoming coal, oil, and gas than see our ridgelines and sagebrush country covered with utility-scale wind and solar projects that depend on subsidies and long-distance transmission. The advanced nuclear project in Kemmerer shows that Wyoming can lead the next generation of baseload power while using the skills, infrastructure, and work ethic of existing energy communities. In Congress, I will fight for Wyoming energy workers, ranchers, counties, and communities. I will oppose one-size-fits-all federal mandates, defend multiple use of public lands, demand honest environmental review, and work to keep the economic value of energy development in Wyoming. We can support innovation without sacrificing the land, livelihoods, and independence that make Wyoming worth fighting for.

What is your position on data centers in Wyoming? 

Data centers present both real opportunity and real risk for Wyoming. On the positive side, they can bring major private investment, construction jobs, long-term tax revenue for local governments and schools, improved digital infrastructure, and a chance for Wyoming to participate in the growing technology and artificial intelligence economy. They can also create demand for Wyoming-produced power and reinforce our role as an energy state. I do not believe Wyoming should reject innovation simply because it is new.At the same time, data centers are not without significant impact. They can require enormous amounts of electricity, raise questions about grid capacity and reliability, create heat, noise, traffic, and construction impacts, and, depending on the cooling technology used, place pressure on water resources in one of the driest states in the country. They may generate significant tax revenue, but they typically do not create large numbers of permanent jobs compared with their size and power demand. Wyoming citizens should not be asked to subsidize private projects through higher utility rates, strained infrastructure, or hidden long-term costs.That is why I support a Wyoming-first approach. Decisions about siting, zoning, infrastructure, water use, emergency services, and community impacts should be made as close to the people as possible—at the county and local level—not dictated by Washington, D.C., or rushed through because a large corporation wants certainty. Governor Gordon’s “Data Centers the Wyoming Way” framework is a reasonable starting point because it recognizes the need to protect ratepayers, water resources, wildlife, grid reliability, transparency, workforce development, and local communities while still allowing responsible investment.The most important requirement is meaningful citizen engagement before decisions are made. Local residents deserve clear answers on how much power a project will use, where that power will come from, whether residential and small-business customers are protected from rate increases, how much water will be needed, what cooling technology will be used, how noise and light will be controlled, what roads and emergency services will be affected, how tax revenue will be distributed, and what commitments the developer is making to the community. Public meetings should not be a box-checking exercise after the deal is already done; they should be part of shaping the deal from the beginning.My standard is simple: if a data center pays its own way, protects Wyoming ratepayers, uses water responsibly, respects local land use decisions, provides transparent information, and earns community trust, then it may be a good fit for some Wyoming communities. If it shifts costs onto residents, consumes resources without clear public benefit, bypasses local input, or changes the character of a community against the will of its citizens, then I will oppose it. Wyoming can welcome opportunity, but we should do it on our terms, with our citizens at the table and our communities in charge.​

What is your position on abortion?

I am pro-life because I believe every unborn child has inherent dignity and deserves protection. At the same time, I believe a truly pro-life response must also show deep compassion for the mother, the father, and the family circumstances surrounding a pregnancy. Many women facing an unexpected pregnancy are carrying fear, pressure, financial stress, health concerns, or a lack of support. If we want to defend life well, we must be willing to walk with mothers in practical and compassionate ways—not only before birth, but during pregnancy and after the child is born. Strong families and strong communities make a real difference. When mothers and fathers are supported, encouraged, and held accountable in loving ways, they are better equipped to make wise decisions about relationships, parenting, and when to have a child. That support should include emotional care, mentoring, responsible fatherhood, adoption resources, pregnancy and postpartum support, affordable childcare, and help for families in crisis. Protecting unborn children should go hand in hand with creating a culture where no mother feels abandoned and no child is treated as a burden. So my position is that abortion should be approached with both moral conviction and compassion. I believe we should protect unborn life, but we should also expand the support systems that help women, children, fathers, and families thrive. To me, being pro-life means caring about the child in the womb, the mother carrying that child, and the family and community that will help that child grow.​

Why are you running for Congress?

I am running for Congress because Wyoming needs proven leadership, not more partisan gridlock. I was raised in Wyoming, educated at the University of Wyoming as an electrical engineer, and spent 27 years serving our nation in the Army, including two combat tours in Iraq as an Apache pilot and command assignments that culminated in my service as a Colonel at the Pentagon advising the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In that role, I worked directly with Congress on matters of national defense and saw firsthand how Washington succeeds—and how too often it fails. After retiring from the Army, I came home to continue serving Wyoming as District Manager for the Bureau of Land Management. There, I oversaw 8 million acres of public land and 13 million acres of federal mineral estate across 10 Wyoming counties. I learned which federal policies help Wyoming thrive and which ones stand in our way. I also learned how to bring people together, make hard decisions, and deliver results—skills that are badly needed in Congress today. I entered this race because too many in Washington have mistaken political theater for leadership. Congress has become trapped in partisan warfare, where finger-pointing replaces problem-solving and the people who pay the price are the American people. Wyoming deserves a representative who will lead with strength, integrity, and common sense. I am a traditional Republican who believes in pragmatic solutions, fiscal discipline, individual liberty, and getting things done. I am running to be a voice for all Wyomingites—not for a national political machine. I will fight to restore accountability in Washington. Congress has not completed all regular appropriations bills on time since fiscal year 1997, and our national debt has climbed to roughly $38.6 trillion. Interest payments alone are projected to reach about $1 trillion in 2026 and now exceed defense spending, which means more taxpayer dollars are going to service debt instead of strengthening our country or investing in our future. Wyoming families balance their budgets, and Congress should be expected to do the same. I support a balanced budget amendment and a return to responsible governing. I also understand Wyoming’s economy because I have helped manage the land and resources that sustain it. I support responsible energy development that creates high-paying jobs while preserving the land for future generations. During my time at BLM, I authorized more than 5,000 oil and gas wells and oversaw the production of 1.7 billion tons of coal, while ensuring reclamation and stewardship remained part of the mission. I believe Wyoming should have a stronger voice in decisions affecting the nearly half of our state that is federally managed, and I will fight for more local control over the policies that shape our land, energy, and future. I strongly support the Second Amendment, private property rights, lower and fairer taxes, and the constitutional limits on federal power. I believe the tax code should be simpler, more transparent, and fairer to working Americans. Most of all, I believe Wyoming deserves a representative who answers to Wyoming—not to Washington. I am proud of where I come from, proud of my record of service, and ready to fight for a stronger future for our state while protecting the values and way of life that make Wyoming exceptional.