Telepeer

Liam Andres O’Neill Hernandez, CA-26 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

May 4, 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: Liam Andres O’Neill Hernandez

Current job title: Businessman

Age: 26

Political party affiliation: Democratic

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: None

City where you reside: Camarillo

Campaign website or social media: liamhernandezforcongress.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.)

Californians are facing rising costs, broken systems, and a lack of accountability from Washington. The three most urgent issues are cost of living, healthcare, and immigration reform.

First, cost of living is crushing working families. As a lawmaker, I would push for federal action to expand affordable housing by investing in large-scale housing construction, strengthening tenant protections, and cracking down on corporate price-gouging. I would also support federal transit funding to lower commuting costs and expand access to reliable public transportation.

Second, healthcare remains unaffordable and unstable. I will advocate for a universal, single-payer system, Medicare for All, so every Californian can access care without fear of debt. I would also support federal caps on prescription drug prices and eliminate surprise billing to protect patients.

Third, our immigration system is outdated and harmful. I support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented residents and DACA recipients, ending for-profit detention, and abolishing ICE in its current form. I would work to shift resources toward community-based processing, legal support, and faster, fairer immigration courts.

Across all three issues, my focus is simple: lower costs, protect working people, and ensure the government serves communities not corporations or political insiders.

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 U.S. Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections, but it also clearly empowers the federal government to set national standards when necessary to protect the right to vote. Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to act when access to voting is at risk.

In my view, the federal government’s role should be focused on protecting and expanding voting rights, not restricting them. That means setting baseline standards to ensure elections are fair, accessible, and secure across all states, while still allowing states flexibility in how they administer those systems.

Requiring strict proof of citizenship to vote risks creating unnecessary barriers, especially for working-class voters, seniors, students, and naturalized citizens who may not have easy access to documents. Instead of adding hurdles, Congress should prioritize policies that increase participation, such as automatic voter registration, expanded early voting, and making Election Day a federal holiday.

At the same time, election integrity matters. The federal government can support states by funding secure election infrastructure, improving voter roll accuracy, and strengthening protections against interference without making it harder for eligible citizens to vote.

The balance is simple: states run elections, but the federal government must ensure that every eligible American can participate freely and fairly. My focus would be on protecting that right, not limiting it.

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 focus on building an immigration system that is humane, orderly, and economically sound, one that reflects our values and meets real workforce needs.

First, I prioritize a pathway to citizenship for undocumented residents and permanent protections for DACA recipients. Millions of people who live, work, and pay taxes here should have a fair chance to earn legal status and stability for their families.

Second, we need a modern, functioning legal immigration system. That means expanding and streamlining visa pathways both for high-skilled workers and essential industries like agriculture, caregiving, and logistics so our economy can grow without relying on exploitation or backlogs that take years to resolve.

Third, the United States must uphold its commitment to asylum seekers. We should invest in faster, fairer immigration courts, provide legal support, and ensure people fleeing violence are treated with dignity not detained in inhumane conditions.

Finally, border management should focus on safety and efficiency, not fear-based enforcement. I do not support the current model of militarized raids and mass detention. Instead, we should invest in smart, accountable systems like modern ports of entry, case management programs, and regional cooperation to address root causes of migration.

In short, immigration policy should bring people out of the shadows, strengthen our economy, and reflect basic human dignity while maintaining an orderly and lawful process.

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.)

If Washington fails to act, a member of Congress has tools beyond letters, and I would use them aggressively to secure disaster funding for Southern California.

First, I would build a bipartisan coalition of California and Western-state members affected by wildfires to introduce and force votes on standalone disaster relief legislation. Wildfires are not partisan, and pressure increases when multiple states are impacted.

Second, I would use the appropriations process to attach wildfire recovery funding to must-pass bills like government funding packages so leadership cannot ignore it without risking a shutdown. That’s how Congress often gets urgent funding across the finish line.

Third, I would work directly with governors, mayors, and local officials to organize coordinated public pressure, joint press conferences, hearings, and testimony in Congress, highlighting the real human and economic costs of inaction.

Fourth, I would push for oversight hearings to hold federal agencies accountable for delays and expose any political obstruction in distributing disaster aid.

Finally, I would advocate for reforms so communities don’t have to wait this long in the future, such as automatic disaster funding triggers when damages meet certain thresholds, and faster FEMA disbursement timelines.

Californians shouldn’t be left waiting while communities struggle to rebuild. I would use every legislative, procedural, and public tool available to make sure disaster aid is delivered.

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 members of Congress and their immediate families trading individual stocks.

Lawmakers have access to sensitive, nonpublic information and direct influence over policy that can move markets. Even the appearance of profiting from that position undermines public trust. The standard should be simple: if you are serving in Congress, you should not be personally trading on the industries you regulate.

I would support legislation requiring members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children to either divest individual stocks or place their assets into a qualified blind trust for the duration of their service. Investments could still be held in diversified funds, retirement accounts, or Treasury bonds to allow long-term financial security without conflicts of interest.

To prevent insider trading, I would strengthen and enforce disclosure and accountability rules. That includes requiring real-time or near real-time reporting of financial transactions, increasing penalties for violations of the STOCK Act, and empowering an independent enforcement body, not Congress itself, to investigate and prosecute misconduct.

I would also support banning members from trading sector-specific funds tied to committees they oversee, closing loopholes that still allow indirect conflicts.

Public service should be about representing people, not outperforming the stock market. These reforms would help restore trust and ensure decisions in Congress are made in the public interest, not for personal financial gain.

Do you support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions? If so, how would you ensure those regulations aren’t overly burdensome on small businesses or lower-income families? And if not, how do you propose lawmakers protect the environment and curtail the impacts of climate change? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes, I support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions, because climate change is already impacting California through wildfires, drought, and rising costs. But those regulations must be designed so working families and small businesses aren’t the ones paying the price.

First, I would pair stricter emissions standards with direct financial support. That means grants and tax credits for small businesses to upgrade equipment, improve energy efficiency, and transition to cleaner technologies so compliance lowers their costs over time instead of raising them.

Second, I would invest in lowering household energy costs. Expanding renewable energy, modernizing the grid, and supporting community solar can reduce utility bills, especially for lower-income families. I would also support rebates for energy-efficient appliances and home upgrades.

Third, I would ensure large corporations, not small businesses, bear the biggest responsibility. Major polluters should face stricter limits and enforcement, while small businesses get flexibility, technical assistance, and phased timelines.

Fourth, I would invest in good-paying union jobs in clean energy, infrastructure, and wildfire prevention, so the transition creates economic opportunity in communities like ours.

Finally, I support holding companies accountable for environmental damage and reinvesting those funds directly into impacted communities.

We can take climate action without hurting working people by lowering costs, creating jobs, and making sure the biggest polluters pay their fair share.

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 automatic increases to military spending. The United States already spends more on defense than any other country, and Congress has a responsibility to ensure every dollar is justified, effective, and aligned with real national security needs.

If additional funding were requested, I would evaluate it based on clear criteria: Does it address a defined threat? Does it improve readiness and the safety of service members? Is it more effective than non-military alternatives like diplomacy or economic strategy? If the answer is no, I would oppose it.

To protect both national security and the public, I would push for stronger oversight and accountability. That includes requiring detailed audits of Pentagon spending, cracking down on waste and cost overruns from defense contractors, and increasing transparency so taxpayers know where their money is going. I also support enforcing existing audit requirements until the Department of Defense can pass a full, clean audit.

I would prioritize investments that directly support troops, such as housing, healthcare, and equipment safety, over unchecked expansion of weapons systems that may not reflect modern threats.

Finally, I believe Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over war powers. Military funding should not be used to enable open-ended conflicts without clear authorization, defined objectives, and accountability to the American people.

Strong national security is not about how much we spend, it’s about how responsibly and strategically we use those resources.

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

The United States should only engage in war as a last resort, under clear and limited circumstances where it is necessary to protect lives and national security.

First, I believe military force is justified in direct self-defense if the United States is attacked or faces an imminent threat. In those cases, the government has a duty to act quickly to protect the country and its people.

Second, the U.S. may engage in war to defend treaty allies when they are attacked, but only when there is a clear legal basis, defined objectives, and a realistic path to resolution. Our commitments should be honored, but not used to justify open-ended conflicts.

Third, I believe there can be limited circumstances for humanitarian intervention, such as preventing genocide or mass atrocities, but only with strong international support, clear goals, and safeguards against prolonged occupation or mission creep.

In all cases, Congress must formally authorize the use of force, as required by the Constitution. I would not support unilateral, indefinite military actions by the executive branch.

Before any military engagement, there must be a clear strategy: defined objectives, an exit plan, transparency to the public, and accountability throughout the process. Diplomacy, economic pressure, and international cooperation should always be exhausted first.

War carries immense human and economic costs. It should never be entered lightly, and only when it is truly necessary, lawful, and in the best interest of both the American people and global stability.

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 president should seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas, except in the most limited cases of immediate self-defense.

The Constitution is clear: Congress has the power to declare war, while the president serves as commander-in-chief. That balance exists to prevent unilateral decisions that could draw the country into prolonged or unnecessary conflicts. War is one of the most serious actions a government can take, and it should require democratic accountability.

If there is an imminent threat or active attack against the United States or its forces, the president must be able to act quickly to defend the country. But beyond that narrow scenario, any sustained or expanded military action should require explicit authorization from Congress.

Requiring approval ensures public debate, transparency, and a clear understanding of the mission, its goals, risks, costs, and exit strategy. It also forces lawmakers to take responsibility for decisions that affect service members and their families.

I would support strengthening the War Powers Resolution to close loopholes that allow extended military operations without proper authorization. That includes setting firm timelines for congressional approval and prohibiting funding for unauthorized conflicts.

Ultimately, decisions about war should not rest with one person. They should reflect the will of the American people through their elected representatives.

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.)

In my view, Congress has too often fallen short of its responsibility to serve as a meaningful check on the president under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

In recent years, oversight has been inconsistent and often shaped more by party loyalty than by constitutional duty. When the president is from the same party as the congressional majority, oversight tends to weaken. When the opposing party is in power, oversight can become more about political messaging than effective accountability. In both cases, the result is the same: the public doesn’t get the transparency and balance the system is supposed to provide.

We’ve seen this most clearly in areas like war powers, where presidents from both parties have engaged in military actions without clear, updated congressional authorization. Congress has also struggled to enforce budget discipline and conduct rigorous oversight of large areas of federal spending.

As a lawmaker, I would take that responsibility seriously regardless of who is in the White House. That means supporting consistent, fact-based oversight hearings, enforcing subpoena power when necessary, and ensuring agencies and the executive branch are accountable to the law, not to politics.

I would also push to strengthen Congress’s institutional role by reasserting its authority over war powers and the budget process, so that major decisions are debated and decided transparently.

Checks and balances only work if Congress is willing to use them. That responsibility should not change based on the party; it should be constant.

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 believe Congress should take action to protect young people online, but broad bans are not the right approach. Social media is a major part of how young people connect, learn, and express themselves. The goal should be safety and accountability, not isolation.

First, I support stronger protections for minors’ data and privacy. Platforms should be prohibited from collecting or selling sensitive data from users under 18, and default settings should be the highest level of privacy.

Second, I would require stronger age-appropriate design standards. That includes limits on addictive features like endless scroll and autoplay for younger users, clear time-use notifications, and the ability for parents and teens to set usage boundaries.

Third, I support transparency and accountability. Companies should be required to disclose how their algorithms promote content to minors and be held responsible for knowingly amplifying harmful material, including content linked to self-harm, exploitation, or harassment.

Fourth, I would invest in mental health resources and digital literacy education, so young people and families have the tools to navigate these platforms safely.

I do not support a full federal ban on social media for minors, but I do support setting a minimum age requirement with enforceable safeguards and meaningful consent protections.

Ultimately, the responsibility should be on tech companies to design safer platforms, not on families to fight systems built to maximize harm.

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.)

Public safety is about more than crime statistics; it’s about whether people feel secure in their daily lives. In Congress, my role would be to address the root causes of that insecurity while supporting effective, accountable public safety systems.

First, I would focus on economic stability. When housing costs, healthcare bills, and basic expenses are out of control, communities feel strained and unstable. I would push for affordable housing investments, lower healthcare costs, and good-paying jobs to reduce the pressures that contribute to crime and fear.

Second, I would support targeted federal funding for community-based violence prevention programs like youth outreach, mental health services, and intervention initiatives that have been shown to reduce crime before it happens.

Third, I would invest in mental health and substance use treatment. Many communities are dealing with visible crises that make people feel unsafe, and the solution is not just enforcement; it’s access to care and long-term support.

Fourth, I support funding for local law enforcement tied to accountability, training, and community trust, ensuring departments have the resources they need while maintaining transparency and high standards.

Finally, I would work to reduce gun violence through universal background checks and safe storage laws, while respecting responsible ownership.

People deserve to feel safe in their neighborhoods. That means addressing both the reality of crime and the conditions that shape how communities experience safety every day.

There are term limits to serve in the California Legislature, but none to serve in Congress. Would you advocate for term limits for House members? Why or why not? If you support term limits, how many years maximum should a House member be allowed to serve? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes, I support term limits for members of the House.

Congress was designed to be responsive to the people, but over time, it has become easier for incumbents to remain in office for decades, building advantages in fundraising, name recognition, and political connections. That can limit new voices, reduce competition, and contribute to a system that feels disconnected from everyday people.

Term limits would help ensure regular turnover, bring in fresh perspectives, and reduce the incentive to treat public office as a long-term career rather than a period of service.

I would support a limit of 12 years in the House, equivalent to six two-year terms. That timeframe strikes a balance: it gives representatives enough time to gain experience, deliver results, and take on leadership roles, while still guaranteeing opportunities for new leadership over time.

At the same time, term limits should be paired with broader reforms like reducing the influence of money in politics and strengthening campaign finance laws so that new candidates can realistically compete and serve effectively.

Public office should be about service, not permanence. Term limits are one step toward making Congress more accountable, competitive, and representative of the people it serves.

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

One hidden strength I have is empathy. I’ve gone through a lot in my life, and that’s shaped how I connect with people.

As President Joe Biden has often spoken about, personal hardship can deepen your ability to understand others. My experiences have given me that same ability to truly listen and relate to what people are going through, whether it’s struggling with costs, dealing with health challenges, or trying to support family.

Because of that, I’m able to connect with people from all backgrounds. I don’t see conversations as political talking points, I see them as real stories from real people. When someone shares what they’re facing, I take it seriously, and I carry that with me.

That empathy helps me build trust quickly and communicate in a way that feels honest and human, not scripted or distant. It’s also what drives me to push for policies that actually reflect people’s lived experiences.

I may not call it a traditional “talent,” but being able to understand, relate, and connect with others on a real level is something I take pride in and something I believe is essential in public service.

Orange County Register

News Details

Liam Andres O’Neill Hernandez, CA-26 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS