U.S. Congress District 7
Maad Abu-Ghazalah, Libertarian
Career: Founder of software business specializing in data analytics for attorneys
Education: B.S. mathematics, University of Notre Dame; M.S. computer science, University of Virginia; law degree, Santa Clara University
Q: What qualifies you to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives?
A: Three parts of my background bear directly on the decisions Congress faces. I was born in the West Bank and grew up in Saudi Arabia, which gives me firsthand knowledge of a region that dominates our foreign policy debates and a perspective too often missing in Washington. My work as a patent attorney means I can help write practical rules for AI, with an understanding of the technical dangers it poses. And after 30 years running my own business, I've had to live within a budget, which shapes how I'd approach a national debt that now exceeds $40 trillion.
Q: Would you vote to increase IDEA funding to schools? Historically, Congress has only been funding the program at 13% when it’s supposed to be 40%.
A: A society should be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members, and that is why I would support meeting the federal government's IDEA commitment. When Washington mandates services and then funds only 13% of the cost instead of the promised 40%, it pushes the cost onto local taxpayers and school districts while simultaneously maintaining control over how the mandates are met. It can't have it both ways. Either it accepts the financial responsibility it promised and ensures the needs of handicapped children are met, or it admits it does not prioritize funding IDEA and relinquishes oversight to local school districts. I would close the gap without adding to the debt, by redirecting money from overseas military spending and foreign aid. In fact, supplemental spending for the Iran war alone costs us more than the $30 billion shortfall in IDEA funding.
Q: Would you work to pass legislation on expanding or limiting money spent on political campaigns?
A: I would work to limit the influence of money in campaigns. When corporations, foreign lobbyists and wealthy donors with a direct financial stake in government spending can pour unlimited money into elections, voters lose confidence that officials are working for them. I would work to ensure our FARA laws are enforced and are not circumvented by organizations such as AIPAC that clearly lobby on behalf of a foreign nation. I would also require full disclosure of who funds political spending, and I would bar companies that receive federal contracts or subsidies from funding political committees. Because of the First Amendment, I would focus on transparency and on conflicts of interest rather than on restricting speech.
Q: PFAS is in the water of millions of Americans; what do you think Congress should do to protect them? Would you change the Clean Water Act?
A: Yes. PFAS is a national problem, but it affects the Cape Fear River basin especially hard and our representative must make sure corporations, not residents, bear the cost. I would amend the Clean Water Act to write national limits on PFAS discharges into law, applying equally to corporations and government entities, including the military, a major source through firefighting foam. Putting the limits in statute means protection doesn't change with each administration. I would also keep strong drinking water limits in place and make polluters pay for cleanup, including replacing contaminated private wells, so the cost doesn't fall on taxpayers or ratepayers. Congress should continue aggressive monitoring to make sure the cleanup is effective.
Q: The federal government has committed more than $242 million in grant funding to the replacement of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. How big a priority would you make securing additional federal money for this project?
A: Rather than focusing on the amount of federal funding, I would make it a priority to re-visit the federal height requirements which could literally double the cost of the bridge. The 135-foot height requirement is rooted in a 1996 study, even though NCDOT's 2024 analysis found no vessels on the river needs more than 100 feet of clearance. Rather than ask taxpayers for more money, I would press the Army Corps of Engineers to reassess current and future navigation needs. Washington shouldn't set a requirement and leave local drivers with the bill.
Q: The Trump Administration has sought approval from the courts to have the U.S. Postal Service impose tougher restrictions on sending mail-in ballots to voters that have requested them. Do you favor these federal restrictions?
A: No. States run elections and the Postal Service's job is to deliver the mail, not to decide which ballots are allowed through it. The rule would require new envelope barcodes and force states to hand voter lists to the Postal Service in advance, which means an eligible voter could be left without a ballot because of a technical error, not any wrongdoing. The administration says the rule is needed to prevent fraud, but a Brookings analysis found mail-voting fraud to be extraordinarily rare, about 0.000043% of mail ballots. The Supreme Court has kept the rule on hold for this November, but the case continues, and I would oppose reviving it. If there are real security concerns, they should be addressed by states and Congress with evidence, not by a rule that can keep eligible voters' ballots from reaching them.
Q: What, if any, adjustments would you make to the tax rates, including the corporate rate, and taxes on personal income, stock assets, inheritance, and financial transactions?
A: I would modify the federal tax structure to penalize consumption rather than taxing what people earn. The current system penalizes work and rewards the wealthy, who can afford lawyers and accountants to exploit loopholes. Instituting a broad-based value added tax, as is used in Europe, would achieve this end. To protect lower-income families, I would exempt the cost of necessities. With this system, corporations would pay the same consumption tax as any individual. The bureaucracy necessary to monitor stock trading, inheritance and other purely financial transactions would be eliminated since they don't involve consumption. The rate would be set so the change is at least revenue-neutral.
Q: There has been a lot of attention to shifting funding to states from the federal level, such as FEMA and the Department of Education. Where do you stand the matter?
A: Yes. The federal government should step back from funding and running programs like FEMA and the Department of Education, and return both the responsibility and the tax dollars to the states. When federal grants come with strings, states, cities, universities, and emergency responders end up at the mercy of whoever is in power in Washington. In 2025, Homeland Security grant terms would have required states and cities to certify they wouldn't boycott Israeli companies to receive at least $1.9 billion in FEMA grants. That was pulled after criticism, but it showed how easily emergency funding can be used as leverage. States are closer to the people they serve and more accountable to them. There should be a transition period where federal taxes are reduced as state spending increases, so the shift doesn't simply hand states the bill. I would also keep a federal backstop for catastrophic disasters that exceed what a state can handle.
Q: From tariffs to ICE, we’ve heard criticisms that Congress has abdicated its oversight power. What role would you like to see Congress have in exercising its Constitutional power?
A: Congress should reclaim the powers the Constitution gave it. Taxes, including tariffs, are Congress' to set. The Supreme Court ruled in February that the president can't impose sweeping tariffs under emergency powers, but the administration has turned to other laws that Congress passed decades ago and never limited. I would work to narrow those delegations, so that tariffs require a vote of Congress. On immigration enforcement, Congress has given ICE tens of billions of dollars with few conditions attached. I would insist on regular hearings, transparency requirements, and safeguards for civil rights and due process, so the agency's powers come with real accountability. This is especially needed when ICE has been responsible for the deaths of several US citizens and there have been reports of mass violations of civil liberties.
Q: When it comes to foreign policy, what would you like to see Congress do in terms of our support for Israel and Ukraine, our participation in NATO and other international bodies? Would you push for the administration to get Congressional approval for continued military action in Iran?
A: Our defense budget should defend America. I would end U.S. military aid to foreign governments, including Israel, Ukraine, Jordan, and Egypt, and I would vote against the administration's $1.5-trillion defense request. The Iran war has already cost more than $45 billion at a time the national debt is already above $40 trillion. Congress has voted to direct the president to end hostilities, and the White House has ignored it, so I would use the power of the purse and vote against additional war funding unless Congress explicitly authorizes the war. On NATO and other international bodies, I think the US should redirect our military funding to emphasize diplomacy over war. To that end, I would prioritize funding diplomatic missions over direct military expenditures such as NATO.