CONTACT US

Contact Form

    News Details

    Ammar Campa-Najjar, CA-48 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire
    • May 5, 2026

    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: Ammar Campa-Najjar

    Current job title: Navy Reserve Officer/Educator

    Age: 37

    Political party affiliation: Democratic

    Incumbent: No

    Other political positions held: None

    City where you reside: San Diego

    Campaign website or social media: ammarforcongress.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 three issues I hear about most these days from voters in CA-48 are the war, affordability, and immigration — specifically the conduct of ICE.

    Families are struggling to afford groceries, gas, housing, and childcare. In Congress, I’d fight to crack down on corporate price gouging, expand affordable housing incentives, and make sure working families actually benefit from tax policy instead of watching it reward those at the very top.

    We need to be honest: the system is broken, and neither party has fixed it. I want to dismantle and overhaul ICE and reform the DHS so families across our district feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. I also support smart border solutions paired with a pathway to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants and Dreamers that keeps families together and meets our economic needs.

    This administration launched an unauthorized war, and Californians are paying the price at the gas pump, in global instability, and in the fear that their loved ones could be sent into another endless conflict. I lived in Gaza, and I understand the cost of war in that region in a way that’s deeply personal. Congress has a constitutional duty to authorize military action, and I will fight to reassert that authority. We need diplomacy, and we need leaders who put Americans ahead of political posturing.

    These aren’t partisan issues, and they deserve solutions that aren’t partisan. In Congress, I will work with anyone who will help lower costs, end forever wars, and fix our broken immigration system.

    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 authority over elections, but the federal government has a duty to protect voting rights and ensure fair access. I oppose burdensome federal mandates like the SAVE Act that risk disenfranchising eligible voters. Instead, Congress should support secure, accessible systems—like modernized voter rolls and protections against foreign interference—while respecting state flexibility.

    We can safeguard election integrity without putting up barriers for lawful voters. There is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud and we shouldn’t disenfranchise people to solve a problem that doesn’t exist in the first place. I oppose efforts to restrict people from voting and when I’m in Congress I will fight to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to make sure we expand voting access.

    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.)

    As the son of Palestinian and Mexican immigrants with family members living on both sides of the border, this issue is deeply personal. In truth, the vast majority of immigrants are our friends and neighbors; they’re the hospital worker caring for your sick loved one, the teacher educating your child, the farmer feeding your family, and they serve in our military.

    Our immigration system is outdated, inefficient, and failing both our economy and our values. Our federal government must pursue a balanced approach that includes getting ICE out of our neighborhoods, smart border solutions, a functional legal immigration system, humane treatment of those seeking refuge, and ensuring we pass comprehensive immigration reform that is both pragmatic and embodied in our values of compassion.

    First, we must uphold our humanitarian commitments by treating asylum seekers with dignity and ensuring due process. We must reform DHS and overhaul ICE to push back against the egregious overreach we’re seeing from the current administration.

    Second, we need to invest in modern border infrastructure and noninvasive technology, particularly at ports of entry where most illicit trafficking occurs by American citizens.

    Third, we must fix the broken asylum system by increasing the number of immigration judges and processing cases more quickly so that claims are resolved fairly and efficiently.

    Finally, we should expand legal pathways for workers. Southern California’s economy depends on both high-skilled talent and essential workers in industries like agriculture, healthcare, and hospitality.

    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.)

    Southern California communities devastated by wildfires cannot afford further delays in receiving federal support. If elected, I would take an aggressive, results-driven approach to securing disaster aid. That begins with building a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers from wildfire-prone states—Democrats and Republicans alike—who understand that disaster relief is not a partisan issue but a national responsibility.

    I would work to attach wildfire recovery funding to must-pass legislation, such as federal budget packages or disaster relief bills, to ensure it cannot be ignored or sidelined. Additionally, I would push for oversight hearings to hold federal agencies accountable for delays and demand clear timelines for action. Transparency and urgency are critical when families are trying to rebuild their lives.

    Equally important, I would collaborate closely with local and state leaders to ensure that funding requests are detailed, justified, and ready for immediate deployment. By demonstrating both the economic and human impact of these disasters, we can make a stronger case for swift action.

    Delivering disaster aid requires persistence, strategy, and coalition-building—not just rhetoric. I will use every legislative and oversight tool available to make sure our communities receive the support they need to rebuild stronger and more resilient than before.

    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 strongly support a ban on members of Congress and their immediate families trading individual stocks. Public service should never be used as an opportunity for personal financial gain, and even the appearance of insider trading erodes trust in our institutions. I’m proud to have the endorsement of Congressman Mike Levin and I would sign onto the Restore Trust in Congress Act to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks.

    To restore confidence, I would support legislation requiring members of Congress to place their assets in qualified blind trusts for the duration of their service. This ensures that lawmakers are making decisions based on the public interest—not their personal portfolios. I also believe we need real-time financial disclosure requirements so the public can see potential conflicts of interest as they arise, not months later.

    Enforcement is equally important. Violations should carry meaningful penalties, including substantial fines and potential removal from committee assignments. Ethics rules must have real consequences to be effective.

    This is an issue that resonates across party lines. Americans of all political backgrounds agree that their elected officials should be held to the highest ethical standards. By banning stock trading and strengthening transparency, we can take a meaningful step toward restoring trust in Congress and ensuring that public service remains exactly that—service to the public.

    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 strong policies on pollution and carbon emissions because climate change is already impacting Southern California—from wildfires to extreme heat. However, we must implement these policies in a way that protects working people, the trades, and small businesses from undue financial burdens.

    That means pairing environmental standards with cost-saving investments. For example, we can expand tax credits and grants to help small businesses transition to cleaner energy without absorbing the full cost upfront. We should also expand our energy portfolio and invest in renewable energy infrastructure that lowers utility bills over time, reducing long-term costs for households.

    For lower-income families, targeted rebates and energy assistance programs can ensure that climate policies do not disproportionately impact those already struggling. At the same time, investing in clean energy creates good-paying jobs right here in Southern California, helping workers transition into growing industries.

    The goal should not be regulation for its own sake—it should be results: cleaner air, lower energy costs, good-paying jobs and a stronger economy. We don’t have to choose between environmental protection and economic opportunity. With smart policy design, we can achieve both and leave a healthier, more affordable future for the next generation.

    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.)

    Our national defense is a core responsibility of the federal government, and I will support funding that ensures our military remains strong, prepared, and capable of addressing modern threats. However, I do not support issuing blank checks without accountability.

    As a service member in the reserves, I understand how important funding our nation’s defense is to maintain deterrence and readiness. It is necessary to fund our military, especially paying our service members on time, however it is also critical that we have the most efficient expenditures in our budget to make sure we’re taking on the challenges at home as well as abroad. If additional funding is requested, I would evaluate it based on clear strategic needs—such as strengthening cybersecurity, supporting our service members and their families, and investing in emerging technologies that address future threats. At the same time, like all agencies, we must identify and eliminate wasteful spending, outdated weapons systems, and inefficiencies within the defense budget.

    Oversight is critical. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used effectively and that military spending aligns with our national security goals. This includes regular audits, transparency in procurement, and a focus on readiness rather than excess.

    We can maintain a strong defense while being responsible stewards of public funds. My approach is straightforward: support our troops, invest in the future of national security, and ensure accountability every step of the way.

    Under what specific circumstances do you believe the U.S. should engage in a war? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

    As a Navy Reserve officer, this has a direct effect on my life. I believe America is at its best when we’re leading by the power of our example rather than the example of our power. We must exhaust every instrument of our national power — diplomatic, information, and economic — and kinetic warfare should always be our last resort.

    The United States should only engage in war when it is absolutely necessary to protect our national security and when all other options have been exhausted. Military action must be a last resort, not a first response.

    There are three key criteria I believe must be met. First, there must be a clear and compelling national security interest at stake—such as defending the United States, protecting our allies, or preventing a direct and imminent threat. Second, there must be a defined objective and a realistic strategy for achieving it. Entering a conflict without clear goals risks prolonged engagements with no clear outcome. Third, there must be an exit plan and strategy for what comes next, including how to responsibly end the conflict and support stability afterward.

    Diplomacy, alliances, and economic tools should always be prioritized before military force. War carries immense human and financial costs, and those costs must be justified by necessity, not convenience.

    As a member of Congress, I would approach decisions about war with the seriousness they deserve, ensuring that any use of force is carefully considered, clearly justified, and aligned with both our national interests and our values.

    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, I believe a president should seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas, except in cases of immediate self-defense. The Constitution is clear in granting Congress the authority to declare war, and this provision exists to ensure accountability and prevent unilateral decisions that could lead to prolonged conflicts.

    Requiring congressional approval forces a national conversation and ensures that the decision to use military force reflects the will of the American people. It also provides an opportunity for lawmakers to evaluate the objectives, risks, and potential consequences of military action before committing American lives and resources.

    Over time, this balance of power has eroded, with presidents from both parties increasingly relying on broad or outdated authorizations. I believe it is time for Congress to reassert its constitutional role by updating and, where necessary, repealing existing authorizations for the use of military force.

    Restoring this balance is not about limiting the president’s ability to respond to threats—it is about ensuring that decisions of such magnitude are made with transparency, deliberation, and democratic accountability. Our service members deserve nothing less than a clear mission backed by the full support of the nation.

    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.)

    Congress is designed to serve as a coequal branch of government, providing oversight and accountability regardless of which party controls the White House. In recent years, however, Congress has too often fallen short of that responsibility under both Democratic and Republican administrations. As an educator teaching students about the institutions of the government and the checks and balances established in our Constitution, it feels more like I’m teaching a history class instead of a civics class as these bedrock foundations continue to erode under Trump.

    Oversight has become inconsistent and, at times, overly partisan. Lawmakers have sometimes prioritized political considerations over their duty to hold the executive branch accountable. This undermines public trust and weakens the system of checks and balances that is fundamental to our democracy.

    As a member of Congress, I would take this responsibility seriously. That means conducting rigorous oversight, asking tough questions, and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively. It also means being willing to hold leaders accountable regardless of party affiliation.

    The role of Congress is not to serve as a rubber stamp for the president, nor is it to engage in endless partisan conflict. It is to legislate, oversee, and represent the interests of the American people. Restoring that balance is essential to strengthening our democracy and ensuring that the government works as intended.

    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.)

    We are watching an entire generation grow up lonelier, more anxious, and more disconnected than any before, and the evidence is clear that social media is a major driver. Kids are struggling with depression, self-harm, and a lost sense of belonging, and we can’t keep looking the other way.

    Yes, Congress should act. I support common-sense federal restrictions on social media for minors, including robust age verification requirements, a ban on manipulative algorithmic feeds targeting children, and stronger data privacy protections for anyone under 18. The tech companies have proven they won’t self-regulate. They’ve designed these platforms to be addictive, and they’re profiting off of kids’ attention at the expense of their well-being.

    But we also need to address where so much of the damage happens: in our schools. I believe phones should be put away during school hours, period. Countries like France, Australia, and the Netherlands have already done this with great success. When students aren’t scrolling, they’re engaging with their teachers, with their classmates, and with the experience of actually being a kid. We’ve seen improvements in focus, academic performance, and in students’ sense of connection and belonging. That matters. Kids need to look up from screens and see each other.

    This isn’t about being anti-technology. It’s about being pro-kid and pro-education. We can embrace innovation while still drawing boundaries that protect our children’s mental health and development.

    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.)

    Even as crime rates decline statistically, many Californians still feel unsafe in their communities. Addressing that gap between data and perception requires a comprehensive approach that tackles both immediate concerns and underlying causes.

    In Congress, I would support federal funding for community policing programs that build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. When people feel heard and respected, cooperation improves and safety increases. I would also advocate for investments in mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and homelessness prevention—factors that are often closely tied to public safety concerns.

    Prevention is just as important as enforcement. Expanding access to education, job training, and economic opportunities can help reduce crime by addressing its root causes. At the same time, we must ensure that law enforcement agencies have the resources and training they need to respond effectively and responsibly.

    Public safety is not about choosing between enforcement and prevention—it requires both. By taking a balanced, community-focused approach, we can create safer neighborhoods and restore a sense of security for families across Southern California.

    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 am open to implementing reasonable term limits for members of Congress as a way to encourage fresh perspectives and restore public trust, while still preserving the experience needed to govern effectively.

    Term limits alone are not a cure-all for the challenges facing Congress, but they can be part of a broader effort to make government more responsive and accountable. I believe the first step to true reform is overturning Citizens United to get agenda-controlling money out of politics, and on day one, I plan to introduce an amendment to do just that. I am also in favor of banning the trading of individual stocks by members of Congress and passing the No Kings Act so that no President will be above the law.

    Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance between continuity and change. We need leaders who understand the complexities of governing, but we also need to ensure that new voices and ideas have the opportunity to be heard. Thoughtful term limits can help achieve that balance while strengthening confidence in our democratic institutions.

    What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

    I can play guitar, and I played in a garage band when I was younger. Maybe I’ll perform at future campaign events!

    ​ Orange County Register 

    News