Its decision 2026 and the stakes are high.

A race that could help determine control of the U.S.

House.

Republican Congressman Tom Barrett defending the seat he won two years ago.

Democrat William Lawrence, trying to flip it back.

And the issues at the center of this race.

Data centers.

Prices at the pump.

Tariffs and trade.

The cost of health care and conflicts overseas.

One our two candidates, the Michigan sevent Congressional District debate.

Here are your moderators, Lukas Cherry Jones and News Ten's David Andrews.

Welcome to the Michigan seventh Congressional District debate here at the Walker Studios at Michigan State University.

I'm Jones from Walker.

And I'm David Andrews from News10.

Over the next hour, we'll hear from the two men hoping to represent Mid-Michigan in Congress.

They are incumbent Congressman Tom Barrett and challenger William Lawrence.

On the November 3rd ballot is Republican Congressman Tom Barrett.

The former U.S.

Army warrant officer and state lawmaker fro Charlotte is in his first term representing the seventh Congressional District.

He is being challenged by Democrat William Lawrence.

This is Lawrence's first run for public office.

The Lansing resident founded the Mid-Michigan Tenant Resource Center, which advocates for housing affordability.

And they're hoping to win a two year term in Congress.

Michigan's seventh congressional district centers around Lansing.

It includes all of Ingham, Clinton, Shiawassee, and Livingston counties, as well as portions of Eaton Genesee, and Oakland counties.

We are also joined by our panel of journalists, including Sophia Saliby, the host of All Things Considered on our radio.

Danny Valle, an anchor and reporter on News Ten, and Colin Jackson, the Capitol reporter for Michigan Public Radio.

They'll help us ask question on the issues affecting people all across Mid-Michigan.

Now, here are the ground rules that both campaigns agreed to in which we will enforce.

Both candidates will receiv a one minute opening statement that will be followed by rounds of questions developed by us, the media panel, and questions submitted by our viewers.

Now, the questions have not been shared with either candidate.

They will be given a minute each to respond with a 30 second follow up.

Now, at the end of the debate, we'll have a one minute closing statement.

All right.

The order of the debat was determined by a random draw.

That's right.

Mr.

Barrett will go first with his one minute opening statement.

Well, thank you.

And, thank you so much for, organizing this debate.

Sheri and David, thank you for hosting today.

And to our other reporters who are present.

I appreciate you, working hard to pull this together.

And to my opponent, thank you for being here to share the stage on this debate.

I'm not used to bein the shortest one on the stage, but appreciate the opportunity to be here together and, share a bit of my view for the future of our country.

When I ran for Congress two years ago, I ran because I wasn't satisfie with the status quo in America.

I'm raising a family in this district.

My wife and I are raising four young kids right her in Mid-Michigan, in Charlotte, and we see the things that families are struggling with and going through.

Health care and housing ar still too expensive in America.

We have other challenges that we're facing, whether it's in gas and groceries.

I'm committed to solving those issues.

I've been an independent voice for my district, and I'm looking forward to returning to Washington to continue to working on working on those issues and so much more in being a voice for my district, my community and families just like mine.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Barrett.

We will now hear from William Lawrence with his opening statement.

Thank you so much, the moderators.

Thank you to WKA and Michigan State University.

My name is William Lawrence.

I was raised right here in East Lansing, and I live downtown Lansing with my wife.

I'm a community organizer and coalition builder who spent my life bringing people together to fight for a better life.

I'm fighting now against this stupid war that has caused our prices t go up and not made us any safer.

Fighting against AI data center that are threatening our jobs, our energy bills, our water and our home values.

And you can count on me to fight for these things, because unlike my opponent, I don't take a dime of corporate PAC money from the people who are benefiting.

And I'm independent of the party bosses in DC.

While he's voted in lockste with his president, every time it matters, you know you're going to hear from Tom.

Really his whole campaign strategy is fearmongering and mudslinging to distract from the fact that he's had a disastrous record upholding the status quo ove these last two years in office.

If you vote for me, we can make a change together and win in Michigan.

We can afford a future we can look forward to and a country we can be proud of.

Well, thank you both.

And we want to begin this debate with a question that's been on the mind of many Mid-Michigan residents.

Working familie in Mid-Michigan are paying more at the gas pump, more at the grocery store, and more each month for a home or apartment.

And AAA says in the past two years, gas prices have gone up an average of $1.60 a gallon.

The USDA says grocery prices are up about 4% and mortgage rates are up 18%.

So what is your top priority for lowering those costs and how would you pay for it?

We begin with Mr.

Barrett.

Well, thank you for the question.

And you're right.

Gas is obviously far too expensive, and that ripples across the entire economy in ways that affect grocery prices, home mortgage rates and everything else.

It's probably no secret to most of the folks listening today.

I was one of the very first Republicans and have been a consistent vote against the continuation of the war in Iran.

This was not a vote of convenience for me.

This was one of conviction.

I spent 22 years in the Army.

I saw friends that came home struggling after the effects of war, and the only one on this stage who's actually been to war, to see the devastating effects that that causes.

I take that responsibility very seriously as we wind down the war in Iran.

We all know that fuel costs will come down in the rest of the economy will recover as well.

in the rest of the economy will recover as well.

We've also worked to put more money in people's pockets through the working families tax cuts, benefiting the hardest working Americans with no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime, no taxes on Social Security for 90% of seniors in my district and across America.

I have plans for housing and health care that I hope we can get into as we have more time in this debate as well.

Mr.

Lawrence you have one minute to respond.

Yeah.

Life is way too expensive, and Tom's right that the war in Iran is to blame for much of that.

But he's incorrec that he's offered any meaningful opposition to it.

In fact, on the first day of the war, in the early days, I was out front opposing it.

While he said that his president had earned the opportunity to start this disastrous war.

And he then voted to fund the war and voted for it in total three times.

fund the war and voted for it in total three times.

We can't afford for this war to continue, and I will fight to bring it to an end.

The tariff policy has also been a serious cause of higher costs here in Michigan.

We've been impacted mor than any state in the country.

And whether you're a worker, a business owner, an investor or a consumer, you know that the business conditions have been so erratic because the president wakes up in the morning and he decides what the tariff rate ought to be based on his mood that morning.

5.

25.

55%.

Tom Barrett voted to allow that to continue for the president to continue to set the tariff rate.

And I would vote to restrain that.

All right, Mr.

Barrett, you have a time for a 30 second response.

Sure.

Well, to start out within the war in Iran, I was again on one of the ver first Republicans consistently not since last month or last week, since May of this year, opposing the continuation of the war in Iran.

The War Powers Act gives the president a limited amount of time to operat without the consent of Congress.

As soon as that 60 day mark passed from the 61st day forward, I was a consistent vote to enforce our constitutional provisions and provide congressiona oversight for the war in Iran.

Mr.

Lawrence, a 30 second rebuttal.

Tom, you said that the president earned the opportunity to start this disastrous war.

I don't think anybody has earned the opportunity to enter into such a quagmire.

As we've seen, at the tail end of 25 years of already endless and expensive forever wars.

Now we've opened up a new chapter thanks to your president.

And on tariffs, I noticed you didn't answer for that, because you can't answer for your vote to allow the president to maintain this errati and destabilizing tariff policy, which is impacting Michigan more than any country state in the nation.

All right.

Thank you both.

Many Michigan residents are facing higher health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs, while some struggle to find nearby doctors or clinics.

We turn now to Colin Jackson with Michigan Public Radio Network with a question on healt care access and affordability.

Census data show around 94% of Michiganders.

Under 65 have health insurance, yet many still feel like they can't afford the doctor.

What can the government do to ensure we're getting better care for the money we pay?

And this goes to.

I'm sorry.

We'll begin with Mr.

Lawrence.

With that for with one minute.

Okay.

Thank you.

So you mentioned people under 65 and what we've seen as a result of the vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act is people between 50 and 65 have been the most severely impacted.

You know, I spoke with, you know, a mechanic here in Lansing who saw his monthly premium go from $600 up to $2,000.

I kid you not, as a result of Tom Barrett's vote.

You know, maybe goes without saying.

That man is now uninsured because he cannot pay for his coverage.

And what we've seen is that there are a small number of investors and insurance executives who are getting ric by denying all of our coverage.

I mean, you pay the premium you pay the co-pay, you pay the, all the other expenses, and then you still have to negotiate on the phone with the claims agent just to get the basic stuff paid for.

So I believe that we should all be covered for life.

We can do it with a single payer plan that would cover us all throughout our lifetimes.

But that's going to require taking on the health insurance executives who are funding my opponent's campaign.

Mr.

Barrett, your one minute response, well.

What you heard from my opponent was his versio of a Medicare for all government funded $40 trillion expenditure for health insurance.

What I've done is actually push for reform within the health insurance industry, introduced the Care Over Profits Act to force health insurers to actually pay more in claims for the amount of premiums that they're taking in.

Premiums are far too high today for families.

Look, I get it, too.

I'm.

We're a family of six.

I paid nearly $20,000 in health care premium and deductibles last year alone.

I see this every single day.

I've supported the Care of Our Profits act that would put, would drive down premium costs by forcing insurers to pay more in medical claims for the amount of premium that they're taking in.

I've rejected, contribution from the health insurance packs, and I don't support putting a government run program for $40 trillion under the books when we're already struggling with so much financing.

Lastly, I supported the effort to, reinforce the most favore nation status for drug pricing.

Co-Sponsor that with a Democrat colleague of mine to make sure that Americans are not paying more for those prescription drugs than people in other developed countries are.

Mr.

Lawrence, your 30 second rebuttal.

We're already spending trillions on our health care, and everybody will pay less under my plan, with the exception of the billionaires and the wealthiest in the country who are currently not paying their fair share.

Tom has voted to make an already broken health care system even worse by, let's see, 130,000 fewer people are enrolled here in Michigan as a result of his vot to cut the Affordable Care Act, and 200,000 people are at risk of losing their coverage in January because of his vote to cut Medicaid.

Mr.

Barrett, your 30 second rebuttal?

Well, the facts don't lie.

We are actually going to spend more on Medicaid next yea than we spend this year alone.

And those number are going to continue to climb.

We made reforms to Medicaid to make sure that we are no longer covering people that are in the country illegally, for example.

We also made sure that people who were ineligible were no longer being covered by Medicaid benefits paid for by the hardworking taxpayers of my district.

And then we added modest but meaningful work requirements for able bodied working aged adults so that they can so that they will be able to go out, find job, find employment, not to punish them, but because we fundamentally believe in the dignity of work.

We're paying more to cover fewer people.

Thank you.

We are paying more money in Medicare Medicaid next year than this year yes All right.

Our next question.

Well, police agencies ar increasingly using surveillance cameras like Flock to help investigate and deter crime.

Danny Valle with News Te has a question about balancing crime enforcement and our privacy concerns.

Flock safety runs about 120,000 license plate cameras nationwide.

The company says they've supported over a million investigations and helped find 10,000 missing people.

But there have been cases across the country where officers were charged with misusing the system.

Congress now has bills to cut federal funding, limit how states use the cameras, or set data deletion rules.

Which would you vote for?

And what do you tell a police chief who says you're taking away a tool that solves crim and helps find missing people?

We begin this round with Mr.

Barrett.

Well, thank you for the question.

And, you know, I'm somebody who supports, robust protections for individuals.

That's one of the reasons I voted against the continuation of the, warrantless surveillance of Americans without appropriate warrant protections.

That I was one of only a couple of dozen Republicans that voted against the reauthorization of that program.

I believe in constitutional rights for people, but certainly I believe in public safety.

While my opponent, you know, stands by and supports repeatedly defunding and abolishing the police.

In his own words.

I have taken the opposite approach funding our law enforcement t help keep our communities safe.

We have to do that in a way that protects constitutional rights.

I was a co-sponsor of the bill that would prohibit federal funds from being use to invest in these flat cameras, because I think we need to balance that with constitutional protections for people.

So we don't live in a surveillance community, but we have to allow our law enforcement to have the tools necessary to enforce our law and keep our communities safe.

And that's what I've been working on in Congress.

Mr.

Lawrence, your thoughts on the use of surveillance cameras to prevent crime?

This mass surveillance dragnet that is being created This mass surveillance dragnet that is being created is one of the most unAmerican things I can imagine.

We've got a long history in this country, on both sides of the political aisle, of suspicion, of concentrated power in big business and big government, and that is what has now been created ste by step over the last 25 years.

And the Flock cameras are just the latest instance of it.

I'm glad that people are fighting back and drawing the line, and they're saying, don't tread on us and don't spy on us either.

This has to be put to a stop.

It's unconstitutional.

It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

As for public safety, I support law enforcement, and I believe in all the above approach to public safety that includes police as well as community violence intervention, stronger mental health services.

So police don't have to be answering mental health calls and can be focused on solving violent crime.

But my opponent has actually voted to defund public safety initiatives over the last two years, and organizations in Lansing are having to lay off their staff and leave us in more danger as a result.

Mr.

Barrett, your rebuttal?

Well, obviously, my opponent doesn't want to answer for his record of repeatedly calling for the defunding of police multiple different times.

And then when crime soared here in Lansing and we became the ninth most violent city in America, my opponent publicly said, it turns out the cops aren't very good at enforcing or keeping us safe.

We should just abolish them altogether.

Couple that with his plans to throw open the borders and it will make our communities far less safe.

Nobody supports that.

He can't even defended himself.

Mr.

Lawrence, your 30 second response.

You know, there was a wide ranging conversatio at the beginning of this decade about how to keep people safe, and the result of that conversation was clear.

We do not want to defund the police.

We want to fund the police, along with community violence intervention, mental health programs and the all of the above approach to public safety that I've described.

But my opponent, Tom Barrett, followed his president, Donald Trump, i defunding public safety measures and cutting many jobs for people here in Lansing over the last two years who were doing that work.

Did you call for the abolition of police.?

Tom we.

Alright.

Thank you.

Thank you gentlemen.

The Trump administration has used tariffs as a tool to protect American industries.

Let's go now to Sophia Salib with WKAR News with a question about the economic impact those tariffs are having with one of Michigan's closest trading partners, Canada.

The Trump administration has levied large tariffs on Canada, our state's biggest trading partner among dozens of other countries.

Congress does have the ability to regulate tariffs.

Should Congress act to end the national emergency declared by the white House, it has allowed the president to institute these tariffs over the past two years?

Let's begin with Mr.

Lawrence.

So the tariff policy has been completely erratic and destabilizing for our entire economy.

You know, I've stated, repeatedly that, you know, I am a supporter of tariffs in the right context.

Tariffs can be part of a trade and industrial policy mix.

That' about putting Michigan workers first and enhancing our economy as a whole.

But you have to do it strategically.

Look at it sector by sector and ask, where do the benefits of trade outweigh the costs?

And then apply the tariffs at a strategic level.

That's the opposite of what this president is doing, which is he wakes up in the morning, he throws a dart at the dart board, and he sets the tariff rate based on wherever the dart landed.

And that's why Congress too a vote to restrain the president from doing that, because it was clear he was destabilizing the entire economy and raising costs all over the country, no more than here in Michigan.

Tom Barrett voted to allow the president to continue changing the tariff policy each day of the week based on his mood or Lord knows what else, and he has not been able to answer for that vote.

He thinks it's all A-okay.

Congressman Barrett, do you support the Trump administration's approach on tariffs?

Well what I support is tariff policy that brings investment back to the United States.

What we've seen over my lifetime, I'm old enough to remember when we had a booming manufacturing economy here in Michigan and throughout the Midwest and throughout our country.

We've seen a hollowing out of that over the last several decades.

The over corporatization, the off sharing offshoring of jobs to Mexico, China and other places around the world.

We need to bring those investments back to the United States.

Part of that strategy involves tariffs.

It certainly involves trade negotiations.

The USMCA trade agreement from the first Trump administration was a movement in the right direction.

But we've seen Canad and other actors in that space disregard the terms and provisions of that.

Look at our dairy industry here in Michigan, for example.

They are prohibited from even being able to enter the Canadian market.

These things all have a big effect.

I've called for calm and stability so that we can have predictability in our trad relationships with our partners.

Ultimately, it has to be done in a mutually beneficial way.

Trade cannot exist unless it is mutually beneficial.

That's what I've been calling for, and that's what I've been advocating for in Washington.

Mr.

Lawrence you have a 30 second rebuttal.

If Tom has been calling for common stability, he hasn't been very effective at it, because what we see from the president is chaos and instability, and that's reflected in the prices, which you can't even count on what your budget is going to be next month.

You can't make investment decisions about next year because there is no economic security.

This is chaos.

And Tom had an opportunity to restrain President Trump to stop him from sowing thi chaos, and he declined to do so.

Tom, why did you decline to restrain your president and his reckless, expensive tariff agenda?

Mr.

Barrett 30 seconds.

Thank you.

So that vote was taking place in the midst of a Supreme Court decision that was still pending.

I respect the separation of powers.

That decision came down restricting the president.

The only tariff vote we have had since that point was the vote we took a few weeks ago to apply tariffs to Russia and Russian actors that were purchasing, Russian, basically allowing the furtherance of the war in Ukraine.

And I think that is an appropriate way to apply tariffs to bring about resolution to conflict, but also to stabilize our markets.

My opponent doesn't have economic plans.

He doesn't support tariffs He doesn't support tort reform.

He doesn't support regulatory reform.

He supports the Green New Deal.

And then we wouldn't have.

Any ability to.

Bring industries back to the United.

Three times the The UAW supports these tariffs.

UAW hasn't always.

Well we have another hot topic her in Mid-Michigan is data centers.

Communities like Mason have been debating this developments while trying to balance the desire for investment and of course, concerns over the impact it could have on noise, pollution, power grids and water use.

We spoke with a local resident about their concern over data centers.

Hi, I'm Paula Caltrider, and we're fighting data center right here in Mason, Michigan.

And, you know, you really can't be a part of this no data center movement here without renouncing the large solar farms and the dangerous battery storage facilitie that power these data centers.

We know that PA 233 took away local control and gave it to the state.

Mr.

Barrett, what restrictions, if any, would you place on data center developments?

Well, I appreciate the question and appreciate, Paulas, linking this together, thi stripping away of local control that took place in pursuit of this Green New Deal agenda in Lansing, that took away local control for the siting of, project that are there in furtherance of these data centers.

I've been very, very clear.

It is my position in my firm position that local residents have to have the ultimate decision about whether or not to hold, to have a data center built in their community.

I've introduced legislation to prohibit federal agencies from overriding or influencing local control with federal funding, federal grants, or any other movement that way.

And then just a few week ago, sponsored a bill to nullify these nondisclosure agreements that local officials have been signing, that folks rightfully feel concerned about, that they don't even know about these projects before they are pending and before they are nearly completed.

I also have a very clear record.

When I was in the state legislature, voted five different times against the tax incentives.

There are now going to these big data center developer that are some of the wealthiest and highest funded companies in the entire world.

They don't need the tax money from the hardworking taxpayers of Michigan.

I voted five times against that over the last 12 years, and have a record of supporting local control for these efforts.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Lawrence.

What, if any, guardrails would you put on data center developments?

So the record on this is very clear.

I've been a leader nationally recognized in fighting against data centers and for safe AI rather than this reckless, whatever they've got going on in Silicon Valley.

My opponent, meanwhile, data center developers spent, nearly $1 million to get him elected in the last campaign.

Then he entered office and he gave $80 billion in tax breaks to data center developers.

He also voted to ban local control by the municipal or state level for the next ten years.

He voted to ban local control.

Then, as resident across the political spectrum, Democrats, independents and Republicans have been fighting back and saying, no, we don't want this in our communities.

He stuck his finger up into the wind and he saw which way it was blowing.

He did a complete 180 on this issue.

And over the last, you know, six weeks we've seen him scrambling to try to catch up.

But I didn't see him there in Lyon Township or Howell Township or Maso or Lansing or in other townships fighting against data centers over the last year.

I was there, standing alongside the residents.

Mr.

Barrett you have 30 seconds to respond.

So my opponent takes credi for the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which was the, basically the Green New Dea under a different name that gave very aggressive tax incentives to data centers for different methodologies of building.

Look, the word data center wasn't even in the working families tax cut that we passed.

So his, his attempt to to try and deflect from his own record is obviously not accurate.

I've been on the side of local control, but on the side of local residents for this.

He himself said he didn't even start on this issue until a year ago.

I voted against these tax incentive 12 years ago, in my first term in the state House of Representatives voted against them four subsequent times.

My record on this is clear, and I've been on, on, you know, on.

Thank you.

A record that is clear for it.

12 years ago is was a completely different issue.

Mr.

Lawrence your rebuttal.

You know you've been running these ads, celebrating your vote against data centers.

Data centers were in the bill.

This is completely different from the fight that we're fighting now, which is against hyperscale data centers, these behemoths that are threatening to destroy everythin about the communities we love.

You voted last year to prevent local control, local regulation of AI or data centers for the next ten years.

That means that That means that if a school district didn't want AI in the classrooms, they would not be allowed to do so.

If we wanted to say that I could not be used to deny medical claims, they would not be allowed to make that transition.

I introduced a bill to prohibit that.

All right.

Thank you both.

You can.

We are at the midwa point of our debate right now.

That's right.

We're going to take a short break.

But when we come back, we'l have more from the candidates, including their thoughts on issues from America's role in foreign politics to issues impacting families and businesses right here in Mid-Michigan.

Decisions 2026.

Michigan's seventh congressional district debate continues after this short break.

What happens here in Michigan affects us in our schools, towns and neighborhoods every day.

Michigan is changing, not just in the headlines.

This week in Michigan politics was just fascinating.

At WKAR News, our mission is simple.

To connect you to the policies, decisions, and leader shaping the future of our state.

We're staying true to our values.

We're staying true to what we know we do really well.

All from the ground up, not from a partizan angle.

Your generation looks a the world differently than us.

Continue to build on a politics of unity and not division.

We're here to serv by asking questions that matter.

Do you anticipate further cuts and job losses?

The question is, have you found a hook to haul them into court now?

And by facing tough truths, that is of huge concern, and it should be for everyone who calls the state home.

I believe that her story is one many homeowners can relate.

How would you go about changing things?

We expand beyond headlines by offering resources for early voting.

If they never had this opportunity, it would be hard to vote back at home.

She has a voice.

When it's her turn, I will bring her.

And election information to help you decide what matters most.

This isn't just news.

This isn't just news.

It's public service for you and for future generations.

Community members want to know what's happening.

People want Their Local reality to reflect what's real around them.

Because ultimately, the thing that hangs in the balance here is public trust.

Stay connected to WKAR News on social media, through weekly newsletters, and through daily content.

Because when Michigan is informed.

Because when Michigan is informed.

Michigan is stronger.

The issues impacting Mid-Michigan.

The two candidates vying for Michigan's seventh district seat Republican Tom Barrett.

Democrat William Lawrence.

The decision 2026 seventh district debate continues.

Now here' Sheri Jones and David Andrews.

Welcome back to the Michigan seventh Congressional District debate.

We now turn to America's rol in military conflicts overseas.

The United States is providing varying forms of military, financial and intelligence support connected to conflicts involving Ukraine, Iran and Israel.

What role should Congress play in authorizing funding and overseeing those actions?

Mr.

Lawrence, how would you approach our role in these military conflicts?

You have one minute.

I've been a strong critic of these endless wars around the world that have only made us poor, less prosperous and weaker over the last 25 year that we've been fighting them.

I mean, everyone can see that we're not any better off as a result of these endless wars.

My opponent, Tom Barrett, as I mentioned, he stood with his President Trump in the early days of this war in Iran.

And he said the president had earned the opportunity to launch a disastrous war that has resulted in the los of our interests in the region.

He also has been a regula supporter, and he has voted for military aid to Israel which invited us into this war in Iran and has been committing, you know, acts of, genocide in Gaza as well as ongoing war crimes in the south of Lebanon and the West Bank.

We have got to put a stop to this.

I am a strong supporter that we should bring our money home, stop arming Israel, and stop these endless wars that are not making us any safer.

Mr.

Barrett you have served in the military.

Do you support the Trump administration's approach to these wars?

Well, certainly I have separated myself from President Trum on the issue of the war in Iran.

As I pointed out earlier, the War Powers Act delegates a limited amount of authority to the president for a specific period of time before Congress has to act to decide whethe or not to continue that or not.

That authorization has not happened.

All the way back in May of this year, I was one of the very first Republican to vote against the continuation of the war in Iran.

Now, with that being said, we definitely have a national interest in preventing Ira from developing nuclear weapons.

If they obtain them, it would be a disaster and one that we should prevent from happening.

That doesn't mean tha we are endorsing an endless war, or a furtherance of the war that we are in right now.

I am somebody who takes war absolutely seriously.

My opponent, meanwhile, you know, organizes with Hasan Piker, a known anti-Semitic activist who is, who has actually said that America deserved 9/11.

That is the foreign policy view of my opponent and the people that he associates wit begging him to go on his show, calling him the man and askin for his support in his campaign, showing the difference between him and I. Mr.

Lawrence, you have 30s to respond.

Tom, if you want to talk about radical foreign policy, because your president said just yesterday that it would be acceptable for Los Angeles and San Diego to be obliterated, to be obliterated in a war.

I dont support that Do you think that's acceptable?

Nope.

Okay.

Will you condemn your president for using such disrespectful violent language.

I just said I dont support that.

Will you condemn him?

I just said I did.

Okay, so Tom Barrett has condemned the president for his words.

This is this.

But he will vote to continue to support these ongoing appropriations for giving arms to Israel, continuing the war in Iran an continuing more disastrous wars all over the world.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Barrett.

Your 30 second response.

Do you condemn Hasan Piker, for all of his statements, he made, saying that America deserves 9/11.

It's a despicable statement.

Okay.

And, do you, and, which of his statements do you suppor and which of them do you oppose?

Because you're the on that begged to get on his show, begged for his support, as for his, help in your campaign?

All of this was very public.

Tom.

So in the midst of this, disastrous war your president started.

So here's where Ive been.

22 years in the army.

You joined him on stage.

My entire career was spent during the war on terror.

You joined him onstage in Milford, and you said you were proud.

Im an Iraq war veteran.

Lets move on.

Gentelman, thank you.

Let's move on.

Id like to reclaim my time.

Wer going to stay with this theme.

And of course, the growing cost of these wars are being partially blamed for the ballooning national debt, which is now currently more than $40 trillion.

And we turn now to Colin Jackson with a question on the nation's fiscal priorities.

Colin.

The US seems to be rethinking its place on the global stage at a time when allies are at war and health crises require humanitarian aid.

How would you balance the country's duties as a member of global society with the need to address problems here at home?

Mr.

Barrett, let's begin with you, and you have one minute.

Thank you.

I take the issue of the national debt very seriously, and one tha we need to address and confront.

We didn' get into this problem overnight, and we're not going t get out of it overnight either.

One thing we need to do is confront the, realities of mandatory spending that we have in our country.

One one issue that I'd like to work on is getting the 7 million working age men in America who aren't working today back into the workforce to contribute to these programs, like Social Security, so that we can have a balance on that program as well.

And looking at the long term horizon of some of these programs.

But when we take on reform to programs like Medicaid to add modest work requirements remove people who are ineligible and remove illegal immigrants from the program, and were met with resistance from people like my opponent, I would ask him, who does he support covering in Medicaid, illegal immigrants and eligible individuals or people who refuse to go out into the workforce who are meaningful, and able bodied people?

Those are things that I think we can work on to, to get some changes in our programs.

He's going to tell you that he thinks we need to tax the millionaires and billionaires.

The fiscal analysis of Medicare for all, his flagshi program is 35 or $40 trillion.

There aren't enough billionaires in America to pay for that.

Everybody would have to have their income tax doubled every single America just to pay for those programs.

Mr Lawrence how would you balance the need to lead and protect from global threats and take care of the many issues that are facing peopl right here in the Lansing area?

You know, 30% of the national debt has been created under President Trump.

And Tom Barrett voted for a budget which increase the national debt dramatically.

So I don't know what he's talking about.

He has only acted in Congres to increase the debt, including by giving $500 billion i tax breaks for the richest 0.1%, those who are making over $2 million annually.

So I do believe tha we should tax the billionaires and the ultra wealthy in order to help balance this budget.

We also have to exercise som restraint in the out-of-control defense budget, which is no going to $1.4 trillion a year.

You know, we could cut over 10% of that budget without cutting a single service.

member pay, benefits, or any of that.

It would only go to preven some mansions from being built in Northern Virginia by these defense contractors, who are the ones getting rich off of all these endless wars, including Lockheed Martin, which has contributed to my opponent's campaign.

Thank you, Mr.

Barrett.

Your 30 second rebuttal.

Thank you.

So the top 1% of Americans, after the reforms that we took under the tax code, are actually paying a higher percentage of the federal taxes in our country.

Meanwhile, working families are paying less.

If you are a family of four making $73,000 a year or less in income, you are paying nothing in federal tax liability.

That is because of the efforts we took on, and now the top 1% are actually paying more, and their income tax rate wasn't driven dow by the tax cuts that we passed.

We put more money in the hands of working families.

We do need to address our debt and our deficit, but it is there is not enough billionaires out there to pay for the deficit that were in today.

Mr.

Lawrence you have 30 seconds to respond.

Tom Barrett voted to give tax breaks to billionaires.

He voted to cut your health care.

He voted to make your gas and groceries more expensive, and he's voted to increase the national debt.

He is running from his record because he knows that he has repeatedly vote over the last two years to make your life more expensiv while making our country weaker.

And he has no answers for his recor or that of his failed president.

All right.

Thank you.

Gentlemen.

We have seen here in Michigan and across the US the challenges faced when it comes to its broken immigration system, securin the border from drugs and crime, providing a legal path toward citizenship.

And the important role immigrants play in our agricultural industry are among the issues making this a topic Congres and presidents of both parties have struggled with over the years.

Danny Valle has a question about America's approach to immigration.

Danny?

In June, Congress passed the Secure America Act, providing about $70 billion for Ice and Border Patrol on a near party line vote.

Supporters say it secures the border.

Critics say it lacks oversight.

My question to the candidates Congress controls ICEs budget.

Would you fund it at current levels, increase it, cut it or attach conditions?

Let's begin with Mr.

Lawrence.

And what changes would you make to improve our immigration system?

So border security and ICE are two different things.

I support a secure border.

I also support a humane, efficient and orderly immigration system.

That is the opposite of what Donald Trump has been pursuin and which Tom Barrett voted for.

He voted to give nearly $70 billion to ICE, which then proceeded to terrorize American cities.

We can never forget what we sa in the streets of Minneapolis, American citizens being shot in the face and in the back.

Families being separated from their children.

That is wha this president has brought us.

This is so un-American.

We are a country of immigrants.

Immigrants make us stronger.

Immigrants help our economy.

Farmers here in Michigan are struggling to find farm workers to get the crop in, and that causes all of our prices to go up.

We need a secure border.

We need an orderly and efficient immigration court system.

And we do need to remember the words on the Statue of Liberty which call us to our high values and remind us that we should welcome immigrants because we are immigrants.

Mr.

Barrett, what changes would you make to the immigration system?

Well, first I had to address my opponent's remarks.

He didn't mention and faile to point out his repeated calls to abolish the border altogether and to grant amnesty to every single one of the 12 million illegal immigrants that entered our country in the last administration.

He didn't.

He doesn't even defend these statements anymore because they are indefensible.

I believe that immigration policy needs to be firm, fair and humane.

Those three are not in opposite to one another.

We have to secure our border.

One of my proudest achievements in Congress was that we now have a secure border.

And for the first time in my life, we have finally seen fentanyl overdose decline because of the work that we've done to secure our border.

With my opponent's plan, he would legalize every single illegal immigran and his own record, stating that repeatedly we would se fentanyl return to our streets.

He has calle for the abolition of the police and defunding them altogether.

That would only make our communities less safe.

We have to start with a border security first policy, and then we can have a conversation about the remaining immigration questions that are out there that we need to continue to work on and achieve a good result.

Alright thank you.

Your 30 second response, Mr.

Lawrence.

Tom, you are simply lying about my position.

What I believe is we need a secure border, and we need an orderly, efficien and humane immigration policy.

What part of what we saw i Minneapolis is fair or humane?

What part of it is fair?

Humane?

What part of shooting American citizens in the face and in the back is fair, firm or humane?

What part of separating children from their families and sending them into detention centers, where they're held in cages the size of phone booths?

What part of that is fair or humane?

Your president and your Congress have failed to deliver on your own stated immigration policy.

And I think what you really want is to punish people.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Barrett.

Your rebuttal.

Let me just read a couple of my opponent's statements.

Envision a world of fre and open migration, immediately grant amnesty to all 12 millio immigrant illegal immigrants in the country.

These are statements that he has made that he cannot even disavow right now.

He hasn't pointed out any difference.

When did you convert on the issue of immigration security and border security?

Those were hypothetical statements.

Some from 15 years ago.

Hypothetical?

You're running for Congress.

It's not a hypothetical statement.

15 years ago some of these statements.

So was it when Joe Biden was.

President that all of these things.

You want to talk about old statements I made because you cant.

All of these things because you can't answer because he support massive lack of border patrol.

Lack of border security altogether.

Amnest for every immigrant.

Gentleman.

Because he cannot answer for votes hes taken the last two years.

Moving on.

And that is cybercrime is increasing in scale and sophistication.

And our Sophia Saliby ha a question on how cyberattacks are affecting our individuals, our businesses, our hospitals our schools and our governments.

Sophia?

The Consumer Federation of America estimates Michiganders los more than $2.7 billion in 2025 to cybercrime, like online scams and cryptocurrency fraud.

What would you do to protect those susceptible to being defrauded online?

Mr.

Barrett, you are first on efforts to crack down on cybercrime.

Sure.

Yeah.

This is a very serious issue where more and more, particularly seniors and vulnerable Americans are falling victim to cyber attacks and other threats online.

I actually just introduced a bill to create a cabinet level official to both have artificial intelligence as a portfolio of emerging threats of technology, and within that would be the confronting of the threats of cybercrime against Americans.

We need robust protections at the FBI, at the Department of Justice to go after cyber criminals who are preying on Americans, especially in regards to how crypto is used in some of these ways.

These are all things that are very serious.

It's why I support robust law enforcement efforts.

It's why I stand in contrast to my opponent, who has repeatedly called for the defunding and abolition of police, says we're nearer to a world without prisons and police again, statements he's made that he can no longer even defend and wants to pretend that they didn't happen.

They were hypothetical statements, in his view.

These are statements that I take very seriously and stand in opposition to my opponent.

Mr.

Lawrence, what can be done, done to stop these cyber crimes?

Yeah.

On the topic of cybercrime, the greatest threat right now is the advanced artificial intelligence, which is a hacker's dream, making it easier to scam all of us or hack into secure systems.

Tom Barrett, as we've established, voted to prohibit any regulation on AI for the next ten years.

He would like to see the cyber criminals run rampant.

But what we need to do is have a process to ensure that AI is deployed safely.

But right now, we can see that that's nowhere near the case.

So my Stop Tech's overreach plan would put a pause on advanced AI development, because the whistleblowers in Silicon Valley, they're raising the alarm.

They're saying this is going to aid in criminal activity.

It already has committed criminal acts, and it has the potential to go much worse, such as by allowing someone to create a bio weapon or Lord knows what they're saying.

If this goes well, it's going to put 20 million people out of work because we'll make you redundant.

But if it goes poorly, we might kill everybody by accident.

So we need to stop tech overreach and prevent cybercrime.

Mr.

Barrett you have 30s for rebuttal.

I agree that we need robust protections for artificial intelligence.

If we simply stand down, our foreign adversaries the Chinese, Russians and others who are perpetrating all of these cyber attacks against the United States will only go grow stronger in that effort, with no ability for us to defend ourselves.

Artificial intelligence does present real threats.

I've introduced legislation to confront that banning artificial intelligence driven lethal weapon on the battlefield, for example, creating a cabinet level position for artificial intelligenc and emerging technology threats to be able to confront those in ways that are appropriate without giving our adversaries the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians and others, the abilit to overtake the United States.

I can promise you this.

If we give them that ability, they will take it, and we will regret the decisio to allow them to take over this technological advantage.

Mr.

Lawrence you no have 30 seconds for a rebuttal.

Tom, you'r undermining your own position.

I mean, if we ban the ability for AI to enable lethal weapons on the battlefield, won't the Chinese and the Russians eat our lunch with that According to your own logic?

No.

That's why, in addition to a domestic bill, we need to have a multinationa treaty on the management of AI so that we can ensure that we treat this like other global threats, like nuclear weapons.

We engage in negotiations to achieve a nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

This, we're being told, is a technology which is in the same league.

We need to take a diplomatic, multinational approach and treat this at every level.

Alright thank you.

Ive actually called on the State Department to engage in a treaty around artificial intelligence, because I agree that it is a real threat.

All right.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Small businesse are at the heart of our economy.

We had the chance to speak with Heather Hanover, who owns a chocolate company in Saint John's, about one of the many challenges facing her company as she tries to grow it.

Hello, I'm Heather Hanover, owner of Hanover Chocolates in Saint John's, Michigan, the mint capital.

We also have a storefront here and the swipe fees from credit card companies slice deepl into our narrow profit margins.

When the people make small purchases.

Will you support the Credit Card Competition Act to lower processing fees and protect merchants such as I from these rising costs?

All right, Mr.

Lawrence, credit card fees are just one of the many challenges facing small businesses.

Do you support the Credit Card Competition Act, and what specific steps would you take to help grow small businesses helping them remain competitive and creating more good paying jobs?

Mr.

Lawrence?

I'm unfamiliar with the details of the bill, but if it does what it sounds like it does, I would absolutely support it because we need to empower small businesses to, grow their businesses and lower costs and prevent the kind of exploitation that we se from the credit card companies and the other major financial institutions.

My opponent meanwhile, has been funded by, the CEO of Blackstone one of the largest, Wall Street firms in the country, as well as the American Bankers Association, who are some of the people who are getting rich off of charging us these fees.

I've talked to small business owners all over this district who are also being terribly impacted by the Trump tariff policy.

They can't plan for next month with procuring their supplies or planning their market access, because they don't know what the tariff conditions are going to be.

And that makes it impossible to plan for the future, impossible to grow and build their business.

And people are losing their businesses and workers are getting laid off as a result of Trump's reckless tariffs, which Tom Barrett has voted to enable.

Mr.

Barrett, do you support the passage of the Credit Card Competition Act, and what have you done to help small businesses grow during your time in Congress?

Well, the Credit Card Competition Act is currently in a committee that I don't have the privilege of serving on.

So I'm not intimately familiar with the current steps and amendments that could have potentially been offered.

What I support, broadly speaking, is competition in the marketplace, not government control like my opponent has advocated for taking over of whole industries that he opposes.

But specifically on the issue of credit cards, we want to make sure that we have a platform that is safe and secure so that we don't have these cyber attacks that we just talked about in the last question for example, doing that in a way that has robust encryption protections while allowing fo the furtherance of competition where we can, is something that I fully support.

What I've done to support small businesses, the working families, tax cuts that we passed last year over the objection of my opponent directly benefited small businesses.

They were going to see their tax rate more than double if we didn't take action to protect their interests and and also give them th ability to more quickly expense capital investments that they are making, they're going to open the door to providing more job opportunities for people.

In my district, we all know that the overwhelming majority of new jobs that are created are created by small businesses.

That's why I've been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, the largest, collection of small business owners in the entire country supporting my campaign.

Thank you, Mr.

Barrett.

We appreciate that.

Well, we do have one more question submitted from our viewers.

Ken S asks, would you support the Save College Sports bill that recently was passed by the US Senate?

Now, this bill would chang name, image and likeness rules and then reform the transfer portal.

And that could impact student athletes right here at Michigan State University.

And we begin now with Mr.

Barrett.

Yes, I support reforms, to the NIL situation that we've all seen that I think is really degraded the interest and the the spirit of amateur college athletics.

If we turn our college athletics into simply a, you know, a pre leagu for the major, you know, sports, you know, leagues that are out there.

I think we're doing a disservice to the young people that are in college.

And I think having the abilit to have some guardrails around that is very important.

Protecting the interest of th student athletes is important.

But also remembering that these are student first, athletes second.

And I think those are things that we have to really, do we really have to protect.

And all of us have seen thes ridiculous transfers going on, everything happening that really degrade the spirit of college athletics.

And that's something that I want to see us take on meaningful reforms while still protecting the interests of these studen athletes to be able to make a, you know, a profit off of their name and likeness that they weren't able to do in, in past generations.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Lawrence.

You have one minute to respond.

Whether you support reforms like the Save College Sports Act.

I do.

Clearly, this is broken.

An and something's got to change.

I mean, I grew up here in East Lansing, going to Spartan Stadium, going to the Breslin Center.

And I love college athletics.

I love teamwork.

I think that the ability to build a team and see a team grow over the years is one of the things that was great about college sports, which now has been, really degraded, by the way, that it's so professionalized and there's so much big money in it.

Student athletes absolutely deserve the right to be paid for their wor because they work really hard.

But it's gotten all out of control.

And there are so many other people besides the student athletes that are profiting off the current system.

We've got to take a hard look at it and set something straight.

Another concern I have in this area is the influence of sports betting.

I mean, here even on Michigan State's campus, I'm afraid to say that, you know, you get advertisements for Caesars Sportsbook when you're sitting there at the game.

You know, people are being taken advantage of and, squeezed of their money by this deliberately addictive sports betting industry.

And we got to do something about that as well.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Lawrence.

Well, now we are moving to our final question.

The results of November's vote could help decide which party controls the U.S.

House of Representatives.

With Congres likely to remain deeply divided, how will you work with members of the opposite party and with President Trump when you disagree?

To address the concerns raised by Mid-Michigan residents and Michigan residents today, we begin with Mr.

Lawrence.

Yeah.

You know, I'm actually mor optimistic about bipartisanship than I've been in a while, since entering this race.

And I believe it has to start from the bottom up.

You know, I've met people all over this district who are united, regardless of their party affiliation, in their opposition to endless wars.

I've met people, Republicans, independents, Democrats who are united in opposition to AI data centers and wanting accountability for Big Tech.

We all want good housing, good health care that we can count on.

We want Social Securit so that we can retire someday, and our parent and our children can retire to.

We all want mostl the same things, but it's this divisive demagoguery that's taking place in D.C.

that' preventing that from happening.

So I'm going to run my campaign office with the same spirit that we've run the campaign itself, which is with a welcoming attitude, an open door.

We're going to work with peopl across the political spectrum, regardless of what you call yourself, find the common ground and build a Mid-Michigan that we can enjoy and thrive in together.

All right, Mr.

Barrett, give us some examples of how you have worked in a bipartisan way in your first term in office.

Sure.

Will.

Nearly every single bill that I have introduced and put effort behind has been a bipartisan effort, whether that's working with, Hillary Scholte in the district adjacent to mine or whether it's working with Debbie Dingell, who represents Washtenaw County, in efforts, you know, that are important for Michigan.

I can tell you what I won't do, though, which is what my opponent has said for political opponents of his within his own party.

Senator Joe Manchin, former United States senator, when he was not sufficiently active on the radical climate change agenda that my opponent supported, he didn't go to him in this welcoming, open door spirit.

He said, “F you.

Hurry up and die so we can get started” Maybe that's another example of one of his hypothetical tweets, bu it sounds pretty direct to me.

I have never in my life called for the death of a political opponent.

Whether it's Mr.

Lawrenc who I'm facing in this campaign, an opponent of mine in Washington, D.C., I do my best to find commo ground with colleagues of mine every single day and I think that sets me apart from the radical rhetoric that my opponent has espoused for the last 15 years as a career activist.

All right.

Thank you both very much.

We want to thank Tom Barrett and William Lawrence for participating in what has been a very lively and what we hope for the audience, a very informative debate.

And as this debate comes to a conclusion, we want to give both candidates one final opportunity to explain why they should be your pick for Michigan's seventh Congressional District.

And we begin with, Mr.

Lawrence.

I got into this race, becaus I was angry at the status quo.

I was angry at seeing the cost go up, at seeing our American values be trampled on, at seeing our global reputation declin over the last 25 years and more.

And I was angry at the status quo and at Tom Barrett, who has voted to prop up his failing President Trump, who has led us poorly and has made u weaker and poorer as a nation.

But in campaigning, I find that I'm more hopeful than I've been in a long time because, as I've said, I've met people all across the district, put deeper roots into the community that raised me, connect with old friends, met new friends, and I see that there' so much work we can do together to lower the cost to have housing and health care.

We can actually afford to stop these stupid wars and bring the money home.

To insist upon accountability for big tech and economic development that follows the needs of our communities.

And I will work tirelessly, tirelessly, if you vote for m on November 3rd to be an honest, accessible representativ for the people of Mid-Michigan.

Your final thoughts, Mr.

Barrett?

Well, thank you so much for tuning into this debate.

Whether you're watching over the live stream or watching in your living room as it's aired, over broadcast television I appreciate your consideration.

When I ran for Congress two years ago, I told you I wanted to work on securing our border, keeping our communities safe and lowering the cost of living.

We have more work to do.

I recognize that the job isn't done, but we have secured our border.

We brought fentanyl overdose deaths down.

I, I come from a family.

I'm raising four kids right here in this district, and I understand the needs that families have.

I'm asking for your vote to go back to Congress to continue to work on those efforts.

I've introduced legislation to reduce the cost of health care and hold the big healt insurance companies accountable, to lower the cost of prescription drugs, to ban these large hedge funds from buying up the single family homes that are driving up the cost of housing all across America and here in our communities.

I recognize that we have more work to do, but I've been one of the leading and deciding votes against the continuation of the war in Iran, because I take that seriously.

I would be humbled to have your vote on November 3rd.

Thank, thank you both.

And that does it for our debate on behalf of WKAR, WILX TV Ten, and Fox 47.

Thank you all for joining us.

Make your voice heard this November.

Be sure to register and vote.