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: Dennis Feitosa
Current job title: Entrepreneur/Podcaster
Age: 41
Political party affiliation: Republican
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: None
City where you reside: Los Angeles
Campaign website or social media: dennisforchange.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 biggest issues I hear from voters across this district are cost of living, public safety, and homelessness and corruption.
First is affordability. Families are being crushed by housing costs, energy prices, and inflation. In Congress, I would support tax relief for working families, expand deductions for childcare and energy costs, and prioritize American energy production to lower prices. We should be putting American workers and families first.
Second is public safety. Even when statistics improve, people don’t feel safe—and that matters. A functioning society depends on consistent enforcement of the law. I would support federal partnerships that strengthen local law enforcement, address repeat offenders, and confront the mental health crisis driving homelessness.
Third is homelessness and corruption. Billions are being spent with little accountability, and the crisis continues to grow. Government should serve the American people—not insiders. I would push for transparency, audits, and reforms that focus on real outcomes—getting people off the streets and restoring accountability.
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 responsibility over elections, but the federal government has a duty to protect the integrity of federal elections.
I support requiring voter ID for all voters, along with proof of citizenship to participate in federal elections. Voting is a fundamental right, but it is also reserved for citizens, and there should be clear, consistent standards to ensure that.
The federal government can set baseline safeguards for federal elections while still allowing states flexibility in how they administer their systems. That balance respects both state authority and the need for national election integrity.
At the same time, any requirements should be implemented in a way that is accessible and straightforward for eligible voters. The goal is not to make voting harder—it’s to make it secure and trusted.
Confidence in elections is essential, and clear identification standards are a common-sense way to help restore that trust.
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.)
Immigration policy must start with restoring control of the system—and right now, that requires a temporary pause.
I support a moratorium on most new immigration until the federal government can regain operational control of the border, clear the backlog of cases, and enforce existing laws consistently. We cannot continue adding to a system that is already overwhelmed and not being properly enforced.
A country cannot function without control over who enters it. Enforcement has to come first. That includes securing the border, increasing personnel, and ensuring that immigration laws are applied consistently.
This is not about being anti-immigrant. I come from an immigrant family and believe in the American dream. But a system that is not enforced is not fair—to citizens or to those trying to come here legally.
Once control is restored, we can move forward with a lawful, merit-based system that serves the interests of the American people.
It’s been over a year since Gov. Gavin Newsom asked the federal government for supplemental disaster aid to help Southern California communities rebuild after the devastating Palisades and Eaton wildfires, but neither President Donald Trump nor Congress has acted. What would you do to push for the funding, besides writing letters to the Trump administration or the leaders of Congress? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I would take a hands-on approach to securing disaster funding by actively working within Congress to build bipartisan support and attach funding to must-pass legislation.
That means engaging directly with leadership, working through committees, and negotiating to ensure California communities are not left behind. I would advocate aggressively to make sure our communities are prioritized when federal resources are allocated.
I would also push for transparency and accountability in how disaster funds are used so taxpayers can see results and communities actually get rebuilt.
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 banning members of Congress and their immediate families from trading individual stocks.
Public office should not be used for personal financial gain. Even the appearance of insider trading undermines trust in government.
I would support requiring lawmakers to place assets in blind trusts or limit investments to broad index funds, along with strict enforcement and meaningful penalties for violations.
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.)
We should protect the environment, but we also need to be honest about the economic impact of excessive regulation.
I support a balanced approach that encourages innovation and cleaner technologies without placing unnecessary burdens on small businesses or working families. Instead of top-down mandates, we should focus on incentives and investment in technologies that reduce emissions while keeping costs down.
Expanding responsible domestic energy production is also critical. We should not be making Americans pay more while relying on foreign energy sources.
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.)
A strong military is essential, but spending must be tied to clear objectives and accountability.
I would evaluate any request for additional funding based on whether it directly strengthens our ability to defend the United States and deter threats. At the same time, I would push for audits and oversight to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used effectively.
We should avoid endless foreign entanglements and focus on protecting American interests and the safety of our citizens.
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 follow a peace-through-strength approach: maintain overwhelming military capability to deter conflict, and use force only when it is truly necessary.
War should only be pursued when there is a clear and direct threat to national security or vital American interests, and after all other options have been exhausted. Strength and deterrence should always come first, but when force is required, it must be decisive and focused on achieving clear objectives.
We should avoid prolonged conflicts without a defined strategy or end goal. The purpose of military action should be to protect American lives, secure our interests, and resolve threats quickly and effectively—not to engage in open-ended commitments.
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, in most cases, the president should seek congressional approval before engaging in sustained military action.
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, and that check is important. While limited actions may sometimes be necessary, long-term military engagement should involve Congress to ensure accountability.
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 recent years, Congress has not consistently fulfilled its role as a check on the executive branch—regardless of which party is in power.
Too often, partisanship overrides accountability. Congress should be willing to hold any administration accountable when necessary, not just when it is politically convenient.
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.)
There are legitimate concerns about the impact of social media on young people, but broad federal bans are not the right solution.
Parents should play the primary role. Congress can support transparency from platforms, stronger data protections, and tools that help families manage usage.
Free speech is a core American value, and I oppose efforts to censor lawful expression.
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 when crime statistics improve, people’s lived experience matters.
A functioning society depends on consistent enforcement of the law. In Congress, I would support policies that strengthen local law enforcement, address mental health and addiction, and ensure repeat offenders are not cycling through the system.
Public safety requires accountability and a system that people can trust.
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 Congress.
Career politicians can become disconnected from the people they represent. Fresh perspectives are important for accountability and trust.
I would support a reasonable limit.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I can do a pretty solid Elmo impression. It usually catches people off guard.