Name: Donna Miller
What office are you seeking: 2nd Congressional District
What is your political party? Democrat
What is your current age? 61
Occupation and employer: Commissioner, Cook County 6th District
What offices, if any, have you previously held? Elected Cook County 6th District Commissioner in 2018, re-elected in 2022
City: Lynwood
Campaign website: DonnaforCongress.com
Education: Graduate business courses, Pepperdine University; BA in Business Administration, Howard University
Community involvement:
Marital status/Immediate family: Married to former Illinois State Representative Dr. David Miller; two young adult sons
What are the biggest factors driving the cost of living for Illinois families, and what specifically would you do in Congress to make housing, food, health care and other necessities more affordable?
The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress voted to slash taxes in ways that most reward the wealthiest, make the biggest cuts to health and nutrition assistance in history, and force federal spending cuts that will slash revenue sharing with the states. This means that states will have to either raise revenue or make severe spending cuts of their own, in ways that harm their residents and communities.
Illinois families have been paying the second-highest property tax rates in the nation. Reports indicate our average households in 2025 spent $5,285 to stay in the same home, while those in other states spent $2,969. Heavily African American South and West Side areas have protested increases in the double and even triple digits -- up to 133% -- while properties like Chicago’s Trump Tower saw nearly 40% reductions.
These taxation inequities have had a devastating impact on affordability, purchasing power, access, and quality in several areas -- e.g., health care, education, housing, business development and living-wage employment. I fully support a Medicare For All Framework and lowering drug costs. On another front, I would champion legislation that strengthens the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to ensure it continues to reward work and boost take-home pay for low- and moderate-income workers. I would also work to change taxing policies that allow wealthy individuals/entities to deprive federal budgets of billions of dollars annually.
What role, if any, should the federal government play in regulating artificial intelligence?
I agree with an expert observer’s statement, “Information technology has always been a double-edged sword,” which has made possible both the rise of modern society and of centralized authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Along with its benefits and environmental concerns, AI is a powerful weapon in the hands of those unconcerned about democracy.
Studies substantiate the correlation between AI and “intellectual laziness,” loss of human decision-making, discerning truth from lies or information from propaganda. Most troubling to me is how AI can incorporate and contribute to historic social ills, particularly in disproportion use against people of color.
Facial recognition programs have been found to be racially biased -- e.g., wrongly identifying Black women 35-40% of the time. AI software predicting recidivism risk for U.S. courts falsely labeled Black defendants as high risk at twice the rate of white defendants. The Trump administration has already shown a fondness for favoring ways to profile, surveille and punish immigrants and even citizens who exercise free speech. I would definitely argue the need to regulate AI use in the public sector, if we are to maintain any trust in, efficacy and/or fair application of governmental resources.
Experts in this area see it as more than a matter of jurisdiction, but a balancing of innovation, economic stability and fundamental citizen rights. I lean towards the hybrid approach of “cooperative federalism”: establishing a strong federal floor of essential safety, privacy, and fairness standards, to create a predictable baseline for all; preserving the right of states to legislate further, allowing them to address unique local concerns and serve as laboratories for more ambitious regulatory ideas; ideally leveraging the strengths of both systems, creating a cohesive national strategy that honors the traditional and vital role of states in protecting their residents.
What federal funding priorities would you advocate for this district, including infrastructure needs like roads, As artificial intelligence and other technologies drive demand for new data centers, how should policymakers balance the economic and technological benefits of these facilities with their impact on local communities, energy prices and the electric grid? What role, if any, should the federal government play in regulating or encouraging data center development?, broadband, and transit?
President Biden committed to returning the U.S. from about 16th in the world, to its former No. 1 spot in infrastructure development, spurring states to undertake unprecedented improvement projects. Illinois developed a six-year $50.6 billion infrastructure plan, with about $15.8 billion expected to come from the federal government. The Trump administration has already withheld, put restrictions on or made threats about massive funds earmarked for projects in New York, California, Illinois and other states deemed oppositional to its views, particularly on immigration policies. I would fight to ensure these funds reach Illinois as intended.
In addition to my previous comments on AI, I would protect the right of communities to determine whether and how data centers might benefit their communities, including cost-benefit analyses and environmental studies. All the areas mentioned above are integrated in some way. The federal government should have the financial and data resources to propose ways to address complex and emerging issues that meet the needs of local populations
What role should the federal government play in promoting childhood vaccination, addressing vaccine hesitancy and responding to outbreaks?
The current administration’s disdain for approaches based on facts, analysis and expertise goes beyond undermining the population’s confidence in governmental safeguarding of our well-being at all levels. Given my focus on healthcare, I am particularly appalled by the archaic acceptance of unnecessary death and disease. Lack of funding is crippling our ability to prevent, mitigate and treat afflictions conquered in the past and emerging now.
The discouragement of vaccines has meant long suppressed resurgence of measles, influenza and polio. As of 9/2/26, the CDC had predicted COVID 19 as “growing or likely growing in 47 states, declining or likely declining in 0 states.” Illinois fell into the “likely growing” category.
Like Made in America, our nation’s knowledge base once represented the most advanced in the world – now being reduced to no more important than the off-the-cuff musings of former talk show hosts (whose families probably benefit from healthcare they would deny others). I will support restoring previously bi-laterally supported funding for national institutes, departments, agencies and foundations necessary for critical, credible research and higher education that benefit the well being of the country’s diverse populations.
What is your view of the federal government’s role in food safety, and would you support changes to how these agencies are funded or how the food supply is regulated?
Until recently, most Americans relied on lettuce as a dietary staple, just as they took for granted the federal safety policies enabling them to do so. Thanks to recent cuts in related funding and personnel, the 1 in 6 Americans afflicted by common but preventable foodborne illness have begun to lose confidence in nutritional resources fundamental to how long and well we live.
Except for some universities, very few institutions currently remain that survey food security. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently canceled the annual Household Food Security survey it had been conducting since 2001, as “redundant, costly, politicized and extraneous.” I believe it imperative we protect against the pervasive elimination of vital federal research into the needs of populations and the efficacy of program implementation.
Most Americans probably don’t realize the even bigger role various food-supply actions play. Take the impact of massive slashing of nutrition programs developed to assist low-income populations. A 2019 U.S. Department of Agriculture report estimated that in a weak economy, $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.50 in economic activity, supporting grocers, farmers, manufacturers, and logistics workers. In many rural and underserved communities, SNAP spending keeps local grocery stores open and jobs intact. I would seek to restore previous federal food-supply strategies developed after years of research and consideration of their holistic importance.
What should the federal government’s priorities be when it comes to immigration enforcement, detention centers and what limits, if any, should Congress place on how ICE operates?
Above all, it should discontinue giving masked, untrained thugs authority to do whatever they want as representatives of our national government. Other priorities should include a swift and humane path to citizenship for migrants, due process for all, an end to racial/cultural profiling, closure of detention centers, as well as independent oversight, transparency and penalties to ensure administration and implementation do not violate constitutional rights.
What is your view of current U.S. tariff and trade policy, and what approach would you support going forward?
Approaches like NAFTA tend to favor corporate interests over workers, contributing to stagnant wages, manufacturing decline and trade deficits. I would support a more progressive approach that recognizes and incentivizes foreign partners to uphold strong global labor and wage standards, supports mutual national benefits, ensures multinational companies pay their fair share of taxes, and uses tariffs/subsidies judiciously to protect our vulnerable sectors. Many of these principles seem advanced by Reciprocal Trade Agreements.
What changes, if any, would you support to put Social Security and Medicare on a sustainable path while protecting current beneficiaries?
I support a Medicare For All Framework, though not necessarily a single-payer system where the government is the single payer. Virtually every country with universal health coverage offers complementary, supplementary or substitute private health insurance, purchased to ease the burden of cost-sharing, expand access to providers and cover benefits excluded under the public system. I also see promise in expanding pre-tax accounts (e.g., health savings and flexible spending accounts).
“Fixing Social Security: Blueprint For a Bipartisan Solution,” by the Brookins Institute is one of the most comprehensive roadmaps to how to keep the nation’s most important social insurance program solvent that I have read. Even if there’s not complete agreement on every suggestion, it’s a good starting point. The Blueprint keeps the foundation of Social Security while adjusting for the fact that people are living longer and we still need to provide a safety net for older and disabled adults with low wages.
•Increasing the maximum wage subject to Social Security taxes to 90% of total wages.
• Increasing the payroll tax from 12.4% to 12.6%--split evenly between employer and employee as it is now.
• Increasing the retirement age for high earners
• Increasing the number of working years from the current 35 to the highest 40 years of earnings.
• Tax all Social Security benefits of high earners
• Include the 6% of U.S. workers who don’t pay into Social Security--such as teachers, and other state, local and government employees.
These are just a few suggestions that would ensure solvency of the Social Security system for the next 75 years.
What ethical and legal standards should apply when a president or members of the president’s family stand to financially benefit from decisions made by the administration?
It should be prohibited -- no “what ifs,” “buts” or exceptions.
What changes, if any, would you support to campaign finance, lobbying rules or disclosure requirements?
• Passing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision;
• Enacting comprehensive legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act, at the federal and state level, that reforms our campaign finance laws to curb the influence of Big Money flowing into our elections, tackles corruption, and expands and protects voting rights;
• Confirming federal judges and Supreme Court Justices who believe corporations are not people and that political donations do not equate to political speech.
What do you believe are the most important issues facing Illinois that are not receiving enough attention in Washington, and what would you make your top priorities if elected?
Illinois is among states at the top of the list in challenges facing the rest of the country – healthcare, affordability, living-wage employment. According to WARNTracker, Illinois suffered the second highest rate of layoffs between 1988-2026. As mentioned above, we also rank second in the rate of devastatingly high property taxes. On the positive side, the state – particularly my district -- offers enormous opportunities to address such issues both locally and nationally as a transportation hub, with ramifications for growth in tech fields.
I will champion completion of the South Suburban Airport, which government studies and economic experts have long forecast as “transformative” in potential to spur business development, “generate tens of thousands of new jobs, anchor new aerospace and logistics clusters, and strengthen U.S. supply chain resilience.” (Aviation Week 1/13/26). The SSA also promises much needed tax relief to individuals and fuller government coffers to support healthcare, schools and safety/security in historically neglected 2nd District communities. A good comparative example is Fort Worth Alliance Airport, which officially opened in 1989 and in 2024 alone produced $4.2 billion in property taxes paid to local entities.
Do you believe Congress has given up too much power to the presidency, and what would you do to assert or preserve the legislative branch’s role?
Beyond relinquishing too much power to the presidency, Congress has essentially acceded to legislative proposals initiated and crafted by others, with less transparency, public discussion, oversight, accountability or concern for broader national interests. As one response, a coalition of House and Senate conservatives formed the Article 1 Project. I particularly agree with two of their key goals – reclaiming “the power of the purse” and reining in executive discretion -- despite my philosophical differences about targeted areas.
What is the first bill you would file, should you win the election?
In my current office, I have introduced/sponsored several health-related pieces of legislation adopted by the National Association of Counties, which unites the nation’s 3,069 counties. The NACo Maternal Health American Platform legislation promotes comprehensive funding for clinical research on pregnancy and childbirth outcomes -- from demographic/economic risk factors and interventions, to service provision and support from community-based organizations. I have identified similar Congressional bills and would first sponsor the one most likely to achieve the goals ratified by NACo.
Will you accept the result of the election, regardless of the outcome?
Yes. That question itself underscores previously inconceivable internal attacks on our democracy. Whatever newfound concerns I have about the validity of elections stems from those most insistent about unreliability, who are in fact responsible for undermining voting rights and using any means possible to influence who governs at all levels of the country.
What is your view of US intervention abroad, specifically with regards to Iran, Ukraine and Israel?
I believe it should be shaped by and for our national interests and values, based on strategies informed by experienced foreign service experts, comprehensive analysis and collaboration with Congress. Prior to the Trump administration, we had general agreement on when/how to use economic, political and/or military approaches. We had mutually acceptable criteria for providing support to Ukraine and Israel, for continuing to negotiate with Iran. I would support returning to and updating those criteria as a starting point for moving forward.
What are your top 3 priorities? (Check 3 boxes)
Affordability, Health Care, Transportation