Election 2026: U.S. Representative 6th Congressional District Candidate Sean Casten

DOWNERS GROVE, IL—U.S. Rep. Sean Casten is running for his fifth term in the Illinois Sixth Congressional District on the Democratic ticket. He faces GOP opponent Niki Conforti in a rematch from 2024.

IL-06 includes all or sections of the suburban Cook County communities of Alsip, Chicago Ridge, Palos Heights, Worth, Crestwood, Oak Forest, Oak Lawn, Tinley Park, Orland Park, Orland Hills, Palos Hills, Palos Heights, Hickory Hills, Justice, and extends into the Chicago neighborhoods of Clearing, Beverly and Mount Greenwood; and in DuPage, Downers Grove, Oak Brook, Oak Brook Terrace, Lisle, Wheaton, Glen Ellyn, Lombard, Elmhurst Darien, Hinsdale and Willow Springs.

You can find Casten's answers to the Patch candidate questionnaire below:

Candidate

Sean Casten

Town of residence:

Downers Grove

Occupation

US House of Representatives for Illinois' 6th Congressional District (2019-Present)

Previous or current elected office

US House of Representatives for Illinois' 6th Congressional District (2019-Present)

Party Affiliation

Democrat

Family

I am married to Kara and have two daughters, Gwen and Audrey.

Education

Middlebury College (BA)

Dartmouth College (MS, MEng)

Website

Castenforcongress.com

The single most pressing issue facing our district or state is ___________, and this is what I intend to do about it.

In normal times, the answer to this question would relate to transportation and logistics. IL-06 abuts O’Hare in the north, sweeps around Midway in the south, and includes the Belt railyard, plus the major highways and rail lines that induce businesses to locate here and attract suburban commuters and massive distribution centers. Infrastructure funding, rail grade separations, and ensuring the preservation of a regulatory environment that attracts and retains global talent is the “normal” business of the communities I represent.

But these are not normal times. During my travels around the district and monthly town halls this past year, the dominant issue has been rising angst about the state of our country, and, specifically, the sense that the future our parents promised us no longer seems attainable. Sometimes it’s a nervousness about inflation chewing up all their spare income. Sometimes it’s the fear that an armed ICE officer can’t be trusted to protect their rights. Sometimes it’s the fatalism that comes when you believe that the laws you live by don’t seem to constrain the rich and the well-connected. But in all cases, the challenge is not one that can be solved by the creation of a law. It’s a challenge that demands the creation of hope.

Of course, there are laws that I have worked on to address those issues - from my Energy Bills Relief Act to lower costs to my government reform bills to reduce the power of outside money in our political system. But what people are really looking for is some kind of comfort that the people we choose to lead our nation will lead us in ways that give them the luxury of not having to think about us.

Our Constitution gives us the tools to correct the current executive. Notwithstanding recent Supreme Court rulings, the President is not a “unitary executive,” does not have unchecked power to declare war, impose tariffs, nor does he control the “time, place, and manner” of federal elections. Congress does, however, have the power to reassert power over the other branches through our oversight powers, legislative authority, and appropriations power. In the longer term, any government predicated on three co-equal branches must commit itself to that project whenever one branch is seeking to gain power at the expense of the other.

But in the shorter term, our challenge is to provide hope. To let people see how our government works and trust that their officials are working for them. That’s why I’ve averaged a town hall a month since being elected in 2018, and why I think it’s so important to take a public tone that is resolute in defense against those who would attack our democracy but respectful of those who voted them into power. And to always keep in mind James Madison’s observation that our form of government will never guarantee that only the virtuous gain power, so it must trust in the virtue of those who select them.

What are the critical differences between you and the other candidates seeking this post?

I have served 4 terms in Congress, after spending 20 years in the private sector starting and running companies dedicated to profitably reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I have built, grown, and sold organizations that provided good jobs, slashed energy costs, and reduced pollution before coming to Congress. I have delivered nearly $60 million back to the district since getting elected in 2018 in the form of direct federal investments and direct cash to constituents who needed help accessing federal benefits. Speaker Pelosi recognized my expertise on energy policy and climate change when she selected me to serve on the Climate Committee that wrote what became the Inflation Reduction Act. My expertise as a CEO and entrepreneur was recognized when I was selected as Vice Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee.

This is a partial list, but all those experiences have been animated by a commitment to the Boy Scout oath to “leave the campsite better than you found it.” Our responsibility, during the brief time we have the great fortune to be alive on this planet, is to make the world a little cleaner. A little kinder. A little more equal. A little more hopeful. My private and public service has all been in service to that mission.

If you support tax cuts in Illinois, what spending should be eliminated to offset those cuts? Please be specific.

As a federal official, I do not have any direct influence over Illinois tax rates. However, the federal government does have a significant indirect impact on state tax rates by virtue of the way that we allocate federal dollars. The average American receives roughly $1.10 in federal benefits for every dollar they pay in federal income tax. The average Illinoisian receives less than $0.90. That results solely from the fact that spending bills must pass the House and the Senate—e.g., one chamber that is designed to represent the will of the people and another that is designed to represent the interests of the states. That has historically led to a significant discrepancy, with smaller, less economically productive states receiving disproportionately larger benefits.

The challenge this creates should be fairly obvious: every American wants good roads, good schools, reliable utilities, and all the other things that federal, state, and local governments collectively provide. But when places like Illinois get fewer federal dollars on a per capita basis, it puts a greater burden on state and local taxes to fill that gap. This is the core reason why the highest property taxes are in states like IL, CA, NY, and NJ. Not because those states are less fiscally responsible, but simply because the federal government puts more burden on local government.

We can’t fix the fundamental problem without changing the structure of the Senate—but we should at least be clear-eyed about how the structure of our federal government contributes to this problem, rather than just defaulting to lazy stereotypes about the fiscal discipline of various state legislatures. And where we can, we should insist that government programs flow to states on a per-capita rather than per-state basis. We fought for this—and partially succeeded—in the COVID rescue packages, largely by pointing out to our House and Senate colleagues that, as a pathogen that spread through human-to-human contact, per capita allocations were the most fiscally responsible way to allocate public health and recovery dollars. There is no question but that the stronger fiscal performance Illinois demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 was in part due to those funding formulas.

What can be done to alleviate concerns about the demand for electricity, water use and rising electricity costs as more and more data centers are built across Illinois? Do you support restrictions or a moratorium on new data centers?

It’s critical to ensure that large loads, like data centers, pay their fair share for all the grid upgrades that utilities have to provide—and are on the hook if they shut down their operations before those costs are fully recovered.

At the root of this is a problem in our typical approach to US energy policy. A growing economy necessarily consumes energy. Our energy policy should preferentially deploy the lowest cost, most reliable, least polluting technologies to decouple economic growth from energy use and ensure a clean environment for all. Unfortunately, that is not what American energy policy does. We regulate utilities in ways that reward them for capital deployment and thereby disincentivize them from least-cost planning. We allow cost-plus rates that reward for incurring costs that can be passed through and discourage from avoiding costs that can be saved.

To put it another way, US energy policy often puts the interests of producers over the interests of consumers.

This is a fixable problem, and the Energy Bills Relief Act that I wrote with Congressman Levin (and with 163 House co-sponsors) has significant sections to modify the rules and ensure that energy producers have a profit incentive to lower costs for energy consumers that they do not have today. If we do that well, we can meet the energy needs of AI (or other industries) without imposing greater costs on other consumers.

It’s critical to ensure that large loads, like data centers, pay their fair share for all the grid upgrades that utilities have to provide—and are on the hook if they shut down their operations before those costs are fully recovered.

At the root of this is a problem in our typical approach to US energy policy. A growing economy necessarily consumes energy. Our energy policy should preferentially deploy the lowest-cost, most reliable, and least polluting technologies to decouple economic growth from energy use and ensure a clean environment for all. Unfortunately, that is not what American energy policy does. We regulate utilities in ways that reward them for capital deployment and thereby disincentivize them from least-cost planning. We allow cost-plus rates that reward for incurring costs that can be passed through and discourage from avoiding costs that can be saved.

To put it another way, US energy policy often puts the interests of producers over the interests of consumers.

This is a fixable problem, and the Energy Bills Relief Act that I wrote with Congressman Levin (and with 163 House co-sponsors) has significant sections to modify the rules and ensure that energy producers have a profit incentive to lower costs for energy consumers that they do not have today. If we do that well, we can meet the energy needs of AI (or other industries) without greater costs on other consumers.

Do you support regulations on AI?

Politics flows from our legal system, and laws are founded on ethics. So let’s start simply with the ethics of the AI industry. Imagine a world where a pharmaceutical company released a drug without doing any prior testing that was subsequently used by millions of people and then announced not only that their drug could kill you but also that their disclosure of that fact was proof of their moral candor. There would be mass public outrage. There would be demands to take the drug off the market and destroy all doses. There would be demands for government regulation and accountability.

The ethical question here is no different. What is different is the character of the AI CEOs, who have not only implied that it is impossible for them to slow down the development of these tools but also to ask Congress for express liability waivers for their actions. And, I suppose, the fact that political leaders, including the president, seem to share their view that those who hold great power have no obligation to wield that power responsibly.

This is not to suggest that AI is universally bad. To the contrary, it is—like any technology—capable of amazing things that make us vastly more productive than our parents could have imagined. It is simply to note that it is a moral choice whether to constrain how that technology is put to work. Like any technology, government has a responsibility both to ensure that the creators and users of that technology operate within the law and that they are liable in criminal and civil proceedings if they fail to do so. If I send you instructions on how to make anthrax, or encourage your child to harm themselves, or steal private information that I then monetize for my own personal gain, I have committed a crime—regardless of the tools I used to do so.

Congress has a critical role to play right now not only in clarifying that liability but also in ensuring that our law enforcement agencies are fully funded and compelled to enforce existing law. Not out of some punitive desire for retribution, but rather because an economy predicated on the rule of law falls apart the minute we allow companies and individuals to operate outside those rules.

The use of automated license plate reader systems like Flock cameras is increasing at police departments across Illinois, creating concerns about privacy, government surveillance and how that data is used or shared. What role, if any, should the government play in regulating the use of license plate readers, and what steps should be taken to protect Illinois residents' privacy and civil liberties?

Flock cameras and related technologies should be regulated in the same way as our cell phones are regulated whenever we turn on “location services.” Specifically, the fact that information is being collected does not per se violate your Fourth Amendment right to privacy—but how the information is subsequently used and who is allowed to query that data may.

I recently had the opportunity to tour the forensics crime unit at the Orland Park police station, and they showed me how they can use cell phones captured at the scene of the crime to get successful prosecutions and solve cases by using all the data on that phone: where was the phone when the car seen at the scene of the crime was rented? Who was receiving texts and phone calls from that phone at the time? Were they using nicknames or other information only known to the suspect? What route did they take to get to the crime and did they stop at any locations of significance to the suspect? Those tools are extremely helpful to law enforcement to solve those cases, but they cannot be accessed without first obtaining a search warrant against the owner of the phone to protect against unreasonable search and seizure.

Flock cameras and other license plate readers present the same opportunities and challenges. Having video at the scene of a crime of individuals and vehicles can be massively helpful to law enforcement but should never be admissible at trial without first obtaining warrants against specific individuals; you should never be allowed to use that information as a “fishing expedition” scanning every private citizen until you find one to justify a warrant. This is particularly true in light of recent stories about people with access to those cameras abusing those tools to surveil ex-spouses or other private citizens without probable cause.

Do you support the current administration’s immigration enforcement in the Chicago area and beyond? Why or why not? If not, what changes do you think should be made?

No, I do not support the administration’s reckless immigration enforcement in Chicagoland, Minnesota, or anywhere else.

I have always been fond of Ronald Reagan’s description of America as a “tall proud city… teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace—a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.”

That is the vision of America that drew most of our ancestors here, and we remain American only so long as we hold onto that vision. To be sure, xenophobia has always been present in our society and is always heightened in times of economic uncertainty. The political incentives to demonize the Irish at the start of the last century are the same as the incentives to demonize Haitians today. But it has always been true that immigrants—documented and undocumented—are a net economic gain. Immigrant populations always have a working-age skew; given our aging population, that’s key to ensuring that our economy grows. They pay income taxes. The undocumented buy things and pay sales taxes. It is also always true that immigrants commit crimes at much lower rates than the native-born population.

We can see this all in the data. In the four years following the end of COVID, our economy consistently created jobs faster than we were creating workers, in spite of Biden’s comparatively open immigration policy. In the two years since Trump returned to office, our economy has consistently created workers faster than jobs, in spite of the cuts to the workforce created by the immigration clampdown. A country without immigrants is a country with slower growth and slower job creation.

There is no shortage of positive reforms we should make. We should pass the American Dream and Promise Act to provide a path to citizenship for folks who’ve done everything right. We should pass the Farm Workforce Modernization Act to ensure that seasonal work that depends on migratory labor doesn’t penalize workers or employees just because seasonal variation across latitudes sometimes crosses national borders.

But we also need to vastly overhaul ICE. Their abuses in Illinois, Minnesota, and beyond are sickening. But for the federal supremacy clause, there would be legitimate grounds for prosecution of any number of ICE agents who have broken into people’s homes without probable cause, who have arrested and detained without due process, and who have committed unspeakable acts of violence, up to and including murder. The rule of law cannot survive if those tasked with enforcing the law refuse to hold themselves to account - and we will not remain Ronald Reagan’s shining city on a hill if the best and brightest from around the world no longer feel safe when they come to America.

Do you support President Donald Trump's attempts to impose tariffs on U.S. trade partners? What should be done to offset rising costs for Illinois businesses and consumers?

No, for both constitutional and economic reasons. Congress has the exclusive authority to “levy taxes, duties, imposts and excises”. We made this point in an amicus brief, and the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with us in Learning Resources Inc. v Trump. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to approve a temporary restraining order prior to that ruling, making it impossible to fully compensate all who were affected by the illegal tariffs, but I am glad that they belatedly did get it right.

It is also always the case that tariffs are inflationary. To assert otherwise may be required to stay in Donald Trump’s good graces, but it is mathematically illiterate: raising the costs of goods and services leads to higher-priced goods and services. This is not complicated. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently issued a report noting that, if not for the president’s tariffs, the cost of many everyday items would have declined in the past year. If you want to bring costs down, end the tariffs.

What limits, if any, should Congress place on U.S. military action in Iran? Do you believe the president should be required to obtain congressional authorization for military operations against Iran?

The only argument that I find convincing on matters relating to US military action without prior Congressional authorization is in cases where there is an imminent threat to the United States. But in those cases, such actions require immediate Congressional notification thereafter and authorization for continued engagement. The Trump Administration has, in the eight months since the military action began, yet to provide Congress with consistent reasoning on the imminent threat posed by Iran. At various times, President Trump has suggested this war was to end Iran’s nuclear program and/or to bring about regime change. Neither of these goals have been accomplished.

The United States never should have invaded Iran. We had the ability to monitor Iran’s nuclear ambitions through the JCPOA that Trump exited in his first term. We also had ample intelligence making clear that Iran would, if attacked, use the economic leverage of the Strait of Hormuz against us. As my colleague Adam Smith has said “this wasn’t predictable; it was predicted”. A war with no clear strategic objectives and no plan of tactical success serves only to waste money, deplete our munitions, destroy our international credibility, and needlessly sacrifice American soldiers. That will be Trump and Hegseth’s legacy.

What are your ideas for making housing, food, gas and utilities more affordable for your constituents and all Americans?

With respect to utilities, the biggest opportunity is to deploy clean energy - because clean energy is affordable and reliable energy. A nation that can provide electricity, heat, and transportation without burning fossil fuels is also a nation that doesn’t have to pay for fossil fuels to deliver those services. That has informed my legislative work in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Energy Bills Relief Act that I introduced with Congressman Mike Levin this session, and my 20 years in the private sector before coming to Congress, when I sold and built over 80 clean energy power plants - always based on the savings they delivered to our customers.

With respect to food and - at least on the cost side - housing, the most important near-term goal is to repeal the economically illiterate Trump tariffs and his xenophobic immigration policies, and to end the war in Iran. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent - notwithstanding his current rhetoric to the contrary - was correct when he wrote in January of 2024 that “tariffs are inflationary”. The National Alliance of Home Builders noted in April of last year that the “liberation day” tariffs added $10,000 to the average cost of a new home. This isn’t especially complicated - raise the cost of raw materials, and you raise the price of the finished product. Trump’s immigration policies have only made this worse by exacerbating supply constraints. Immigrants - documented and undocumented - are (a) more likely to be employed than native-born Americans and (b) much more likely to work in construction and agricultural sectors. The anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration have starved those sectors of workers and exacerbated an already tight supply of new homes. Meanwhile, the war in Iran is directly responsible for raising the price of oil, in turn driving up gasoline costs and virtually every input to our economy, from fertilizer on farms to airline fares to freight fees.

At the same time, we have to acknowledge the unique challenges of housing. For those looking to buy their first home, housing is an expense. For those who already own homes, housing is an asset. And with housing representing the majority of household wealth, a democratic government, responsive to the will of the majority, is always going to face pressure to keep housing value high. We can - and I have - supported federal help in the form of tax credits for first-time buyers, and in the long term, perhaps we can find ways to diversify American wealth into other asset classes, but until that happens, the best tool to ensure housing affordability is on the supply- rather than demand-side, which inevitably requires coordination with state and local zoning and permitting officials; it cannot be solved solely with federal policy.

What else would you like voters to know about yourself and your positions?

Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government is to do for the people what they can’t readily do for themselves. What I love about this job is that it allows me to do that - from small things like steering local investments in our communities to huge things like working to craft the COVID fiscal rescue package and accelerate the deployment of lower-cost energy infrastructure. What I fear about this job is how many of my colleagues choose to demonize public service - or worse, to use the awesome power of our government to impose harm on the weakest and most vulnerable.

I’ve been struck over the last 2 years by how many Americans wonder whether they can trust our government any more to live up to Lincoln’s vision. From a woman at a July 4th parade who asked me, "is our democracy going to survive?” to an 18-year-old volunteer at a food pantry who asked me, “Why should I be hopeful?” Too many Americans are wondering why a government that supposedly represents them is wasting time on wars that drive up the price of gasoline and imposing tariffs that drive up the price of everything else as they bulldoze our national monuments and post AI slop for no obvious purpose beyond trolling and self-aggrandizement.

And so here we find ourselves with a desperate need for oversight, and to commence the hard work of repairing, rebuilding, and fixing institutions that proved far too fragile at this moment. That is, undeniably, a project that “the people can’t readily do for themselves”. And it is the project I am committed to in the 120th Congress.