Inside the Race for Florida's 22nd Congressional District: A Detailed Recap of the Republican Debate, Candidate Responses, and My Analysis

Editor's Note:

This article is not a transcript and is not an endorsement. It is a detailed recap of the candidates' responses, followed by my own analysis. Whenever I express an opinion, I clearly identify it as my opinion. My goal is to help voters better understand the candidates and encourage everyone to make an informed decision on Election Day.

I attended today's Republican debate in Ave Maria featuring five candidates running for Florida's 22nd Congressional District, and I came away impressed.

The candidates on stage were (seated left to right):

Casey Askar

Michael Carbonara

Rich Evans

Terri Hasdorff

Belinda Keiser

All five were prepared, knowledgeable, and respectful. There were no train wrecks and very few moments where anyone appeared unprepared. In fact, one of the biggest challenges in evaluating the debate was that the candidates agreed on many of the major conservative issues. The real differences weren't always what they believed, but how they explained their positions, how specific they were, and whether they demonstrated the leadership, experience, and judgment needed to represent this district in Congress.

You may agree with my conclusions. You may not. That's perfectly fine. I encourage you to read each section, compare the candidates' responses, and decide for yourself who earned your vote.

Let's begin.

Opening Statements

Opening statements don't usually determine who wins a debate, but they do set the tone. They give voters their first impression of each candidate and reveal what they believe is most important before any policy questions are asked. Some candidates focused on personal experience, others on professional accomplishments, and some on the principles that motivated them to run.

Casey Askar

Casey Askar introduced himself as a lifelong Republican, lifelong conservative, and lifelong pro-life candidate. He shared that he and his wife started their family at a young age and are now the proud parents of seven children.

Much of his opening centered on his experience as a businessman. He explained that he built a company from one employee to more than 4,000 nationwide and credited Domino's founder Tom Monaghan as a mentor who helped shape both his business career and his personal values. Askar also reflected on watching his father lose his job at Chrysler, saying the experience gave him a deep appreciation for small businesses and hardworking families.

His opening established him as a successful entrepreneur who believes his private-sector experience has prepared him to represent Southwest Florida in Congress.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara delivered one of the strongest opening statements of the evening.

Rather than beginning with his résumé, he began with a deeply personal story. He shared that his wife's father spent 20 years as a political prisoner under Fidel Castro, explaining that his family's firsthand experience with communist oppression shaped his understanding of freedom and the dangers of unchecked government power.

He connected that story to today's political climate, arguing that many of the freedoms Americans enjoy have steadily been chipped away in recent years. He pledged to work alongside President Trump to restore conservative values, strengthen public safety, defend free speech, protect religious liberty, support veterans and farmers, and preserve educational freedom.

His opening stayed focused on one central message: protecting freedom and ensuring future generations continue to have access to the American Dream.

Rich Evans

Rich Evans took a very different approach from the other candidates.

Instead of opening with a personal story, he treated the debate like a job interview. As a CPA and risk manager, he argued that Congress needs greater accountability and should be held to the same performance standards expected in the private sector.

He spoke about protecting Florida's water resources, completing the Everglades restoration project, addressing energy and transportation issues, and criticized Congress for relying on continuing resolutions instead of fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to pass appropriations bills.

Throughout his opening, Evans repeatedly emphasized accountability, term limits, and government efficiency, themes that remained consistent throughout the debate.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff delivered one of the most memorable personal stories of the night.

She recalled participating in a student exchange program to the Soviet Union while in high school, where she witnessed firsthand the poverty, fear, oppression, and hopelessness created by communism. She said the experience impacted her so deeply that when her plane landed at Kennedy Airport, she knelt down and kissed the ground because she was so grateful to be an American.

She explained that seeing democratic socialism gain influence in America motivated her to run for Congress. Hasdorff also highlighted her lifelong Republican values, her pro-life record, and her work helping defeat Amendment 4, promising to fight with everything she has to protect the country she loves.

It was an emotional opening that clearly reflected her personal convictions.

Belinda Keiser

Belinda Keiser focused on experience, leadership, and public service.

She highlighted her 36 years leading Keiser University, her two decades working with leaders in Washington and Tallahassee, and her service on Florida's Constitution Revision Commission. She emphasized her commitment to education, workforce development, healthcare, law enforcement, and public safety.

Like several other candidates, she shared a family story illustrating the value of freedom. She described how her grandfather was imprisoned during World War II after being identified as an American sympathizer, explaining that the courage and sacrifice of American forces ultimately saved her family.

Keiser concluded by presenting herself as a tireless advocate prepared to serve the people of Congressional District 22.

Analysis

Each candidate used their opening statement to introduce a different strength.

Askar emphasized his business success, conservative values, and family.

Carbonara built his message around freedom, connecting his family's experience under communism to the policies he believes are necessary to preserve the American Dream. His remarks were focused, passionate, and tied together by a clear theme that he maintained throughout the evening.

Evans positioned himself as the accountability candidate, relying on his background in finance and auditing rather than emotional appeals. His opening immediately differentiated him from the rest of the field.

Hasdorff delivered the most personal and emotional introduction. Her firsthand experience witnessing life under communism gave credibility to her warnings about socialism and helped explain why she decided to enter public service.

Keiser projected experience and stability, emphasizing decades of leadership in education and government while presenting herself as someone prepared to serve from day one.

In my opinion, Carbonara and Hasdorff delivered the two strongest opening statements, but for different reasons. Carbonara presented the clearest overall message, while Hasdorff shared the most memorable personal story. Both immediately established a connection with the audience and set the tone for the rest of the debate.

Top Priorities for Florida's 22nd Congressional District

The candidates were then asked what their top three priorities would be if elected to represent Florida's newly created 22nd Congressional District, which includes portions of Collier, Hendry, Glades, and Broward counties. The question gave voters an opportunity to explain what they believe deserves immediate attention in Washington and what issues they would prioritize for the district.

Casey Askar

Askar said his first priority would be bringing more federal resources back to the district, arguing that one of the primary responsibilities of a member of Congress is ensuring the communities they represent receive their fair share of funding and attention.

His second priority focused on agriculture. He described the district as one of the most important agricultural regions in the country and argued that protecting America's food supply is a matter of national security. Drawing on his experience working alongside farmers throughout his business career, he stressed that agriculture deserves far greater support from Washington.

He also referenced the importance of Everglades restoration and ensuring that smaller communities throughout the district receive the representation they deserve.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara centered his answer on affordability, saying that rising costs remain the number one concern for families across the district.

He argued that reducing government waste, fraud, and abuse through stronger audits would lower the overall cost of government while freeing resources to invest in job training for emerging industries. He also focused heavily on housing, proposing legislation to prevent large investment firms from purchasing excessive numbers of single-family homes. In his view, America should remain a nation of homeowners rather than renters.

Carbonara concluded by emphasizing the importance of protecting the Everglades and maintaining clean water while preserving the balance necessary for agriculture and local industry to thrive.

Rich Evans

Evans once again emphasized water, energy, and transportation.

He described water as one of Florida's most valuable natural resources and stressed the importance of protecting the aquifer and agricultural lands. Turning to energy, he criticized rising utility costs and expressed support for pursuing small modular nuclear reactors as a long-term energy solution for Southwest Florida.

He also advocated expanding desalination as a way to strengthen Florida's future water supply and briefly discussed transportation improvements, including airport infrastructure.

As with several of his earlier answers, Evans approached the issues from the perspective of long-term planning and infrastructure.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff identified constitutional rights as her first priority, specifically highlighting the protection of the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments.

She then turned to agriculture, explaining that it is one of the issues she hears about most often throughout the district. Drawing on her six years of experience working on Capitol Hill, she said she intends to seek a position on the House Agriculture Committee to better advocate for local farmers.

Her third priority focused on taxpayers. Hasdorff emphasized that families should be allowed to keep more of the money they earn and noted that she recently signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, reinforcing her commitment to lower taxes and fiscal responsibility.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser began by reaffirming her support for President Trump and election integrity, stating that securing elections should remain a top priority. She expressed support for the SAVE Act and argued that America should have secure elections just as it protects its borders.

She then shifted to agriculture, explaining that her travels to Israel reinforced the importance of investing in innovation while continuing to support American farmers.

Finally, Keiser advocated returning more authority to state governments, arguing that the continued growth of the federal government has resulted in unnecessary regulations. She said many decisions currently made in Washington would be better handled at the state level.

Analysis

This question began separating the candidates beyond general conservative talking points.

Carbonara approached the question by connecting affordability, government spending, housing, job creation, and environmental protection into a broader vision rather than presenting them as unrelated priorities. His proposal to limit large investment firms from purchasing single-family homes addressed an issue affecting many Florida families. He also referenced government fraud as part of his broader argument for reducing waste, adding specificity to his remarks.

Askar also delivered a strong response by emphasizing agriculture and bringing federal resources back to the district. His description of agriculture as a national security issue reflected the unique makeup of Congressional District 22 and demonstrated an understanding of one of the region's most important industries.

Hasdorff remained consistent with her campaign by emphasizing constitutional rights, agriculture, and tax relief while highlighting how her experience on Capitol Hill could benefit the district.

Evans continued to distinguish himself as the infrastructure-focused candidate, concentrating on water, energy, and transportation while offering ideas such as desalination and small modular nuclear reactors. In my opinion, desalination is an idea worth considering as Florida plans for its future water needs.

Keiser focused on election integrity, agriculture, and reducing the size of the federal government, reinforcing the themes she introduced during her opening statement.

Overall, the candidates approached the question from different perspectives.

Carbonara presented one of the more interconnected responses by tying several issues together, while Askar strongly emphasized the district's agricultural economy. Hasdorff focused on constitutional principles and tax relief, Evans on long-term infrastructure planning, and Keiser on election integrity and reducing the role of the federal government. The discussion gave voters a clearer picture of how each candidate would prioritize the needs of Florida's 22nd Congressional District.

Veterans

With Collier County home to a large veteran population, candidates were asked what they would do to ensure those who served our country receive the care and support they deserve.

Casey Askar

Askar spoke from both personal and professional experience, describing himself as a Marine Corps veteran and a business owner who has employed veterans throughout his career. He said America has a responsibility to provide veterans with the healthcare and services they have earned, but also emphasized helping them successfully transition into civilian life through meaningful employment.

Drawing on his travels to Israel, Askar pointed to programs he observed there that help veterans reenter the workforce. He argued that giving veterans opportunities to build successful careers after military service is just as important as providing healthcare and other benefits.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara began by noting that his own family includes veterans from nearly every branch of the military, saying he understands the challenges many face after returning home. He spoke about the need for better job training, rehabilitation, mental health services, and counseling, referencing his brother-in-law's struggle with PTSD and how receiving the proper care made a difference.

He argued that the Department of Veterans Affairs should be easier to navigate, with less bureaucracy preventing veterans from receiving the help they have earned.

Carbonara also emphasized improving employment opportunities and making sure veterans receive the support they need after leaving military service.

Rich Evans

Evans emphasized accountability within the veterans' healthcare system and argued that elected officials should better understand the programs they oversee.

He suggested that members of Congress should receive the same healthcare benefits as veterans, believing that firsthand experience would encourage lawmakers to improve the quality and efficiency of VA services. Evans also stressed the importance of expanding access to healthcare and ensuring veterans receive timely treatment.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff drew on both personal and professional experience while discussing veterans' issues. She shared that her father served in the military, her mother worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and she personally handled veterans' issues while serving on Capitol Hill.

She emphasized bringing additional resources to Southwest Florida, strengthening VA services, and ensuring veterans receive the care and assistance they deserve. Hasdorff said constituent service for veterans would remain one of her highest priorities.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser highlighted her decades of working with veterans through Keiser University, where many veterans have pursued education and career training after leaving military service.

She emphasized expanding educational opportunities, workforce development, and continued mental health support while ensuring veterans have access to the resources needed to successfully transition into civilian life.

Analysis

This was one of the least divisive questions of the evening. Every candidate agreed that veterans deserve better healthcare, stronger mental health services, and greater support as they transition back into civilian life.

Askar approached the question from the perspective of both a Marine Corps veteran and a business owner. He emphasized not only improving healthcare but also creating meaningful job opportunities for veterans, pointing to Israel as an example of a country that has been successful in helping veterans transition into the workforce. His response addressed both immediate care and long-term success after military service.

Carbonara focused on reducing bureaucracy within the VA while improving access to mental health services, rehabilitation, and job training. His personal connection through family members who served added authenticity to his remarks.

Evans approached the issue from the standpoint of accountability. His proposal that members of Congress should receive the same healthcare benefits as veterans was one of the more distinctive ideas discussed during the debate. He argued that firsthand experience with the VA system would give lawmakers a stronger understanding of the challenges veterans face and encourage meaningful reform.

Hasdorff drew on both personal and professional experience, discussing her father's military service, her mother's work at the VA, and her own experience handling veterans' issues on Capitol Hill. She focused on bringing additional resources to Southwest Florida and continuing to strengthen existing VA services.

Keiser emphasized education, workforce development, and long-term mental health care, reflecting her decades of working with veterans through Keiser University and her experience helping veterans transition into civilian careers.

Overall, there was broad agreement on the need to improve services for veterans, with each candidate emphasizing a different aspect of that mission. Askar focused on employment and long-term success after military service, Carbonara on reforming the VA, Evans on accountability and firsthand understanding of the veterans' healthcare system, Hasdorff on expanding resources through her government experience, and Keiser on education and workforce development. The discussion highlighted different approaches to a shared commitment to supporting those who have served.

DOGE and Government Waste

The candidates were then asked whether they would support bringing back the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) or implementing a similar effort to identify and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse at the federal level.

Rich Evans

Evans strongly supported reviving DOGE, arguing that its brief existence uncovered significant examples of government waste.

Drawing on his background as a CPA and forensic accountant, he said many cases of fraud can be identified simply by asking the right questions rather than launching lengthy investigations. He also referenced independent efforts by citizens and online investigators who have uncovered questionable government spending in multiple states, suggesting that greater scrutiny could save taxpayers substantial amounts of money.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff enthusiastically backed bringing back DOGE, pointing to her own experience helping reform operations while working in the House of Representatives.

She explained that her office conducted independent audits, outsourced unnecessary functions, and successfully reduced waste, fraud, and abuse. Hasdorff said those experiences proved government can operate more efficiently and pledged to support permanent legislative reforms that would reduce unnecessary federal spending.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser highlighted her experience serving on Florida TaxWatch, where she worked on reviewing how taxpayer dollars were spent at the state level.

She also pointed to her experience helping grow Keiser University, arguing that strong financial oversight is essential in both government and business. Keiser emphasized accountability, transparency, and careful review of agency spending, saying she would continue advancing President Trump's agenda of improving oversight over taxpayer dollars.

Casey Askar

Askar also supported continuing DOGE's mission, approaching the issue from the perspective of a business owner.

He argued that balancing budgets requires discipline, accountability, and constant oversight. Throughout his career, he said he has been responsible for managing payroll and making difficult financial decisions, experiences he believes are lacking among many career politicians. According to Askar, business leaders understand how to control spending because they have personally faced the consequences of poor financial management.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara agreed that Congress should continue President Trump's efforts but argued that DOGE's reforms should be permanently codified into law rather than remaining temporary initiatives.

He proposed requiring annual audits for state programs receiving federal funds, arguing that taxpayer money deserves oversight at every level of government. Carbonara also advocated using technology to improve transparency, increase efficiency, and reduce opportunities for fraud while protecting citizens' privacy.

He concluded by arguing that widespread fraud contributes to rising healthcare and education costs and called for stronger accountability, including criminal prosecution for those who steal taxpayer dollars.

Analysis

This was one of the strongest rounds of the debate, with every candidate supporting greater government accountability and reduced spending. The differences were not over whether waste should be eliminated, but over how each candidate believed it should be accomplish it.

Carbonara expanded on the concept of DOGE by proposing annual audits for state programs receiving federal funds, greater use of technology to improve transparency, and making those reforms permanent through legislation. His response was among the most detailed of the evening, offering several specific proposals rather than broad support for the idea.

Askar also delivered a strong response by explaining how his experience as a business owner shaped his approach to budgeting and accountability. His point that many elected officials have never signed a payroll check or personally managed a business offered a different perspective on why government often struggles with spending discipline.

Hasdorff relied on her firsthand experience implementing audits and reducing waste while working in Congress, lending credibility to her argument that meaningful reforms can be accomplished.

Keiser emphasized accountability and transparency through both her work with Florida TaxWatch and her experience managing a large educational institution, reinforcing the importance of careful financial oversight.

Evans brought a unique perspective as a CPA and forensic accountant, arguing that many examples of fraud can be uncovered through careful financial review and straightforward questioning rather than lengthy investigations.

Overall, there was broad agreement among the candidates that reducing waste, fraud, and abuse should remain a priority. The differences came in the methods they proposed. Carbonara focused on expanding audits and codifying reforms, Askar emphasized private-sector budgeting experience, Hasdorff drew on her congressional background, Keiser highlighted institutional oversight, and Evans applied his forensic accounting expertise. The discussion showed that while the candidates shared the same goal, they offered different approaches to achieving it.

One Policy You Disagree with President Trump On

Perhaps the most revealing question of the evening asked each candidate to identify one policy on which they disagreed with President Trump. In a Republican primary where nearly every candidate expressed strong support for the president, this question tested their willingness to think independently while remaining respectful.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff said she generally understands President Trump's reasoning on most issues, but expressed concern about policies involving government-directed investment. While she acknowledged the president's intentions, she cautioned that moving too far in that direction could become unsavory and resemble forms of socialism or communism.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser focused on one provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill dealing with graduate student loans.

Although she emphasized that she supported the legislation overall and believes borrowers should remain fully responsible for repaying their loans, she argued that graduate students should continue to have access to financing for advanced degrees.

She pointed to professions such as medicine, law, nursing, and education, saying graduate education often allows families to increase their earning potential and should remain accessible.

Casey Askar

Askar declined to identify a policy disagreement with President Trump.

Instead, he praised the president's leadership, business experience, patriotism, and family while recounting his own work supporting Trump's campaign efforts in Michigan.

He concluded by reaffirming his strong support for the president.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara praised President Trump's energy policies, arguing they helped restore American energy independence and lower the cost of living.

However, he said he disagreed with the idea of allowing offshore drilling along Florida's coast. While supporting continued energy production through oil, natural gas, and other domestic resources, he argued that Florida's coastline should be protected and expressed confidence that technological innovation could achieve energy dominance without offshore drilling.

Rich Evans

Evans criticized the continued use of massive omnibus spending bills, noting that President Trump had previously expressed frustration with them.

While acknowledging that the One Big Beautiful Bill may have been necessary under the circumstances, Evans argued that Congress should return to passing smaller, individual bills that lawmakers can thoroughly read and debate. He also stressed that legislation should clearly explain its provisions so taxpayers fully understand what is being passed.

Analysis

This was one of the more interesting questions of the evening because it required candidates to identify where, if anywhere, they differed from President Trump.

Carbonara provided the clearest policy disagreement by supporting President Trump's broader energy agenda while drawing a distinction on offshore drilling along Florida's coast. Rather than rejecting the administration's energy goals, he argued they could be achieved without expanding drilling off Florida.

Keiser also offered a specific policy difference, focusing on graduate student loans while making it clear she supported the broader legislation. Her answer reflected her background in higher education and remained narrowly focused on one provision rather than the bill as a whole.

Evans used the opportunity to discuss congressional process, arguing for smaller, more transparent legislation instead of large omnibus bills. His emphasis was less about opposing President Trump and more about improving how Congress conducts its work.

Hasdorff expressed philosophical concerns about government-directed investment, although she did not identify a specific Trump policy by name. Her answer reflected a broader concern about limiting government involvement in the economy.

Askar took a different approach by declining to identify a disagreement at all. Instead, he used his time to reaffirm his support for President Trump and his record. Supporters may have appreciated his unwavering loyalty, while other voters may have viewed his response as an opportunity missed to demonstrate independent judgment on at least one policy issue.

Overall, the candidates generally avoided major disagreements with President Trump. Those who did answer the question focused on narrow policy differences rather than fundamental disagreements, reflecting the president's continued influence within the Republican Party.

Artificial Intelligence Data Centers

The candidates were then asked for their views on artificial intelligence data centers, an issue that has become a major concern for many residents in Collier County and across Florida. With growing debates over projects like Project Tango, voters have increasingly raised questions about the impact these facilities could have on water supplies, energy demand, neighborhoods, and the environment, while also recognizing the need for America to remain competitive in the global race for artificial intelligence.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser emphasized the need for America to remain competitive with China in the race for artificial intelligence while recognizing that AI is an important tool for innovation.

At the same time, she stressed that communities should not bear the financial burden of these projects and that local leaders must carefully consider the potential impacts on water consumption, energy costs, and surrounding neighborhoods. She acknowledged that she does not have every answer but pledged to continue listening to residents before making decisions.

Casey Askar

Askar took the strongest opposition to AI data centers of any candidate on the stage.

While acknowledging the need for the United States to remain competitive with China, he said his responsibility as a representative would be to keep AI data centers away from neighborhoods, schools, farmland, and water supplies. He went even further, stating that he does not want AI data centers anywhere in the State of Florida and promised to fight to keep them out.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara supported President Trump's efforts to promote technological innovation, describing artificial intelligence as a tool capable of producing major breakthroughs, including advances in medicine.

However, he argued that decisions about AI data centers should ultimately belong to local communities rather than the federal government. Referring to the recent debate over Project Tango, he said local officials had listened to residents and made the right decision in rejecting the proposal. Carbonara said he supports innovation but believes preserving Florida's communities and natural environment must come first.

Rich Evans

Evans agreed that America cannot afford to fall behind China in artificial intelligence but also acknowledged concerns about the tremendous amount of water consumed by large AI facilities.

He argued that states and local governments should retain the authority to regulate where these projects are located. Evans also suggested that future AI facilities could potentially be paired with technologies such as desalination and small modular nuclear reactors in remote areas where they would have less impact on surrounding communities.

During his response, Evans also referenced reports he had heard regarding one of Carbonara's business investments involving a technology project in Michigan.

Michael Carbonara Response

Carbonara briefly responded to Evans, explaining that the investment involved a Bitcoin mining operation rather than an AI data center.

He said the project has been criticized by political opponents but argued that it actually benefited the local community by lowering electricity costs through a nonprofit electric cooperative. He also emphasized that the operation does not consume water.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff agreed that communities must be protected and that common sense should guide future AI development.

She pointed to examples from other states and countries where data centers have been located in abandoned industrial sites or engineered to reduce environmental impacts, arguing that thoughtful planning is essential as the technology continues to evolve.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser said she was pleased with the local decision to reject Project Tango, describing the proposal as moving too quickly through the approval process.

She also shifted the discussion toward workforce development, arguing that the United States must invest more heavily in quantum computing and AI education if it hopes to compete with China in the decades ahead.

Analysis

This was one of the most important discussions of the evening because it highlighted the difficult balance between encouraging innovation and protecting local communities.

Every candidate acknowledged that America must remain competitive in artificial intelligence, but each offered a different vision for how that should be accomplished.

Carbonara emphasized the importance of competing with China and embracing innovation while also arguing that local communities should decide whether AI data centers belong in their neighborhoods. His response focused on balancing technological advancement with local control and the protection of Florida's natural resources.

Keiser also delivered a thoughtful response by acknowledging both the opportunities and risks associated with artificial intelligence. Rather than taking an absolute position, she emphasized listening to local communities while highlighting the importance of preparing America's future workforce through greater investment in AI and quantum education.

Askar gave the response many Collier County residents likely wanted to hear. His promise to keep AI data centers out of Florida was clear, direct, and easy to understand. Personally, I believe the better approach is finding the right balance. America needs to remain competitive in artificial intelligence, but that should not come at the expense of local communities. The challenge is encouraging innovation while allowing residents to decide where these facilities belong and ensuring they do not threaten Florida's natural resources or quality of life.

Evans approached the issue from an infrastructure perspective, suggesting that technologies such as desalination and small modular nuclear reactors could help reduce the environmental impact of future AI facilities. Those ideas reflected his broader emphasis throughout the debate on long-term infrastructure planning.

Hasdorff focused on responsible planning, encouraging future facilities to be located where they would have minimal impact on surrounding communities. Her response reinforced the idea that innovation and environmental stewardship do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Overall, the candidates agreed that artificial intelligence will play an important role in America's future. Their differences centered less on AI itself and more on where these facilities should be located, who should make those decisions, and how communities should balance technological innovation with protecting Florida's natural resources and quality of life.

Conservation, Water Storage, and Responsible Growth

The candidates were then asked where they would draw the line between conservation, water storage, and development. They were also asked whether there were projects they would oppose, even if those projects promised jobs and economic growth. The question focused on one of Southwest Florida's biggest challenges: how to accommodate continued growth while protecting the Everglades, Florida's water supply, farmland, and quality of life.

Casey Askar

Askar focused on Everglades restoration and the importance of continuing federal funding for restoration projects. He said one of his responsibilities in Congress would be securing the necessary funding while providing strong oversight to prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement.

He also described conversations he had with the Army Corps of Engineers and biologists regarding water releases from Lake Okeechobee and their impact on Florida's Gulf Coast. According to Askar, scientists explained that a greater percentage of the water is released toward the Gulf because it is a shallower and warmer body of water than the Atlantic. He concluded by saying that Florida must continue pursuing smart, responsible development.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara described the Everglades restoration effort as the largest environmental restoration project in the world and said it must remain a priority.

He acknowledged that Florida continues to attract new residents but argued that growth cannot simply consist of building more homes without proper planning.

Carbonara stressed the importance of protecting Lake Okeechobee, the aquifer, and Florida's limited supply of clean water. He said development should occur where the land and infrastructure can support it while avoiding unnecessary pressure on environmentally sensitive areas.

Rich Evans

Evans agreed that Florida needs smart growth but questioned what that phrase actually means.

He argued that developers should be responsible for providing roads and infrastructure before homes are built instead of placing that burden on existing residents. Evans also suggested creating incentives that would encourage farmers to continue farming rather than selling their land for development, helping preserve agriculture while reducing urban sprawl.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff emphasized that the Everglades are one of the nation's greatest ecological treasures and said protecting them would be among her highest priorities in Congress.

She discussed the importance of Everglades restoration, addressing phosphorus runoff, and finding balanced solutions that protect both Florida's environment and its agricultural industry.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser described Everglades restoration, water quality, and responsible planning as essential to Florida's future.

She emphasized building coalitions within Florida's congressional delegation to secure continued federal investment in restoration projects, scientific research, and support for Florida's agricultural community.

Analysis

This was another issue where the candidates shared far more agreement than disagreement. Every candidate supported protecting the Everglades, improving water quality, and continuing restoration efforts. The debate centered on how Florida can continue growing without sacrificing the natural resources that make the state unique.

Carbonara and Askar stood out, each approaching the issue from a different perspective.

Carbonara focused on the long-term challenge of managing Florida's rapid growth while protecting Lake Okeechobee, the aquifer, and the state's limited clean water supply. His emphasis on planning growth rather than allowing unchecked development presented a comprehensive vision for balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship.

Askar approached the issue through the lens of Everglades restoration and accountability. He discussed conversations with engineers and biologists involved in restoration efforts, emphasized the need for continued federal funding, and stressed oversight to prevent waste and mismanagement. His discussion of water releases into the Gulf demonstrated familiarity with one of Southwest Florida's most important environmental issues.

Evans offered one of the most practical proposals of the discussion by arguing that developers should provide the infrastructure needed to support new communities before construction begins. His suggestion to create incentives that help farmers keep their land in agriculture instead of selling it for development added another thoughtful perspective to the conversation.

Hasdorff focused on protecting the Everglades through continued restoration efforts while supporting balanced environmental policies that also recognize the importance of Florida's farming industry.

Keiser emphasized the importance of federal investment and coalition building to continue restoration work while supporting scientific research and Florida agriculture.

Overall, the candidates demonstrated broad agreement that Florida's environment must be protected. Their differences were not over conservation itself, but over the best approach to managing future growth while preserving the state's water resources, farmland, and unique natural environment.

Water Priorities

The candidates were asked which water-related project they would prioritize if forced to choose among Everglades restoration, Lake Okeechobee, watershed storage, water quality treatment, or flood control. The question challenged each candidate to identify what they believed should receive the greatest attention in Congress.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara rejected the idea that one project should take priority over another.

He argued that protecting Lake Okeechobee and restoring the Everglades go hand in hand and that Florida's water system should be viewed as one interconnected effort.

Rather than choosing a single priority, Carbonara said a member of Congress should fight for all of them at the same time, emphasizing that representing more than 800,000 residents means advocating for every major need, not just one.

Rich Evans

Evans focused on desalination as part of Florida's long-term water strategy.

He suggested combining desalination technology with small modular nuclear reactors to produce both electricity and fresh water while emphasizing that local communities should decide whether those facilities belong in their area.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff emphasized that water is one of Florida's most valuable resources and noted that future conflicts around the world may center on access to clean water.

She said protecting Lake Okeechobee, safeguarding the aquifer, and continuing Everglades restoration are all equally important. Hasdorff pledged to advocate for those priorities through the congressional committees responsible for water policy.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser agreed that Florida's water resources should be viewed as one interconnected system.

She said she could not separate one project from another because they all depend on each other. Instead, she emphasized that securing continued funding for restoration efforts would be one of her highest priorities in Congress to protect both Florida's water supply and its economy.

Casey Askar

Askar emphasized the importance of providing projects with the resources they need to succeed.

Rather than identifying a single priority, he focused on bringing together qualified experts, securing adequate funding, and maintaining strong oversight to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly.

Analysis

This was one of the few questions where there was very little disagreement among the candidates. Rather than selecting a single project, nearly everyone argued that Florida's water system is interconnected and that its various restoration and conservation efforts should move forward together.

Evans focused on future water technology by discussing desalination and small modular nuclear reactors as potential long-term solutions. While his ideas looked beyond the immediate question, they reflected his consistent emphasis throughout the debate on infrastructure and long-term planning. Personally, I think desalination deserves far more discussion. Florida is surrounded by water, and while the technology comes with costs and challenges, it could become an important part of a diversified long-term water strategy.

Carbonara and Keiser were the candidates who emphasized that point most clearly. Both argued that protecting Lake Okeechobee, restoring the Everglades, improving water quality, and investing in water infrastructure cannot be separated because each depends on the others. Carbonara expanded on that idea by arguing that a member of Congress should fight for all of the district's priorities rather than forcing a choice between them.

Hasdorff echoed a similar perspective, emphasizing that protecting the Everglades, the aquifer, and Lake Okeechobee should all remain priorities while pledging to advocate for those issues through the committees that oversee water policy.

Askar approached the question from a management perspective, emphasizing the importance of properly funding projects, relying on qualified experts, and ensuring strong oversight so taxpayer dollars are spent effectively.

Overall, the candidates demonstrated broad agreement that Florida's water resources should be managed as one interconnected system. Their responses differed more in emphasis than in philosophy, reflecting a shared belief that protecting Florida's water is essential to the state's future.

Support for Israel

The candidates were asked whether they support continued American support for Israel and were given an opportunity to explain their position.

Rich Evans

Evans described Israel as an important ally of the United States and emphasized the technological cooperation between the two countries.

He pointed to Israel's missile defense capabilities and argued that the United States benefits from the military technologies and innovations developed through the partnership. Evans also warned that Israel continues to face enemies committed to its destruction.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff described Israel as America's strongest ally in the Middle East.

She said the United States must continue maintaining a strong alliance with Israel and present a united front in supporting one of its closest partners in the region.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser strongly reaffirmed her support for Israel, drawing on her personal visit to the country.

She said President Trump's commitment to Israel was the correct approach and emphasized the shared Judeo-Christian values that unite the two nations. Keiser also highlighted Israel's technological contributions, including the Iron Dome missile defense system, arguing that those innovations have strengthened America's own security.

Casey Askar

Askar framed his support for Israel through the values of democracy, freedom, and religious liberty.

Speaking as a Christian, he said Israel is the only country in the region where he would want to raise his children because of the opportunities and freedoms it provides. He also argued that Israel's fight against radical Islamic terrorism contributes to America's own security and deserves continued U.S. support.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara described Israel as one of America's most important strategic allies.

Drawing on his personal travels throughout Israel and the Middle East, he argued that the U.S.-Israel partnership benefits both nations through intelligence sharing, technology, and national security cooperation. Carbonara also emphasized that strong alliances help maintain American leadership around the world, warning that a weaker United States would create a less stable and less secure international environment.

Analysis

There was overwhelming agreement among the candidates on this issue. Every candidate expressed strong support for Israel and viewed the country as one of America's closest allies in the Middle East. The differences were found not in their positions, but in how they explained the importance of that relationship.

Carbonara's response stood out for its breadth. Rather than simply expressing support for Israel, he explained how the partnership benefits the United States through technology, intelligence sharing, strategic alliances, and global security. His personal experience traveling throughout Israel and the broader Middle East also added context to his remarks.

Keiser also delivered a strong response by combining her personal visit to Israel with an emphasis on shared Judeo-Christian values and the technological partnership between the two countries. Her discussion of the Iron Dome illustrated how cooperation with Israel can strengthen American security.

Askar centered his answer on democratic values, religious freedom, and Israel's role in confronting radical Islamic terrorism. His response reflected both a moral and national security argument for continued American support.

Hasdorff delivered a clear and concise response, emphasizing that Israel remains America's strongest ally in the Middle East and that the United States should continue standing firmly alongside it.

Evans highlighted the technological relationship between the two countries, particularly Israel's missile defense capabilities, while emphasizing that Israel continues to face significant security threats.

Overall, this was one of the clearest areas of consensus during the debate. Every candidate expressed strong support for Israel, with the discussion focusing less on whether the alliance should continue and more on the strategic, moral, and security reasons each candidate believed it should remain strong.

Sharia Law

The candidates were asked how they would respond to concerns about Sharia law in the United States and what they would do in Congress to address the issue.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff said she believes the threat already exists in parts of Florida and warned that the United Kingdom serves as a cautionary example of what could happen if the United States is not vigilant.

She described America as a Christian nation and said she strongly opposes Sharia law, arguing that protections must remain in place to prevent it from gaining influence in the United States.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser described herself as a strong defender of the Constitution and said she believes Sharia law presents a threat to public safety.

While expressing respect for different religions, she argued that Sharia law is incompatible with America's constitutional principles and said she would continue fighting against its influence.

Casey Askar

Askar warned against allowing the United States to follow the path of some Western European countries.

Drawing on his experience growing up in Michigan, he pointed to Dearborn as an example of what he described as communities that have become culturally isolated. He said his family came to America because it is a Christian nation and strongly opposed both Sharia law and extremist Islamic ideology.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara distinguished between religious freedom and Sharia law, arguing that Sharia is not simply a religion but a system of government.

He said America should protect religious liberty while rejecting any form of government that conflicts with the Constitution. Carbonara also argued that preserving faith, family, morality, and constitutional principles is just as important as passing legislation, saying those values work together to strengthen the nation against competing ideologies.

Rich Evans

Evans said Congress should act to prevent the spread of Sharia law in the United States.

He also emphasized the importance of strong families and Christian values, arguing that preserving those foundations is essential to resisting ideologies that conflict with America's traditions. Evans referenced concerns about communities in Michigan and Florida as examples of why he believes the issue deserves attention.

Analysis

This was another question where there was broad agreement among the candidates.

Every candidate opposed the implementation of Sharia law and emphasized protecting America's constitutional system and Christian heritage. The differences were not in their position, but in how they explained it.

Carbonara's response stood out for its broader philosophical approach. He distinguished between religious freedom and Sharia law as a system of government, arguing that America's response should extend beyond legislation to strengthening faith, family, morality, and constitutional principles. His answer connected constitutional government, culture, and national identity into one overarching framework.

Askar also delivered a strong response. Drawing on his experience growing up in Michigan, he pointed to Dearborn as an example of the cultural changes he believes the United States should avoid. He emphasized preserving America's Christian identity and made a direct case against what he described as extremist Islamic ideology.

Keiser focused on constitutional protections and public safety while expressing respect for religious freedom and opposition to Sharia law. Her response was clear and direct, emphasizing her commitment to defending the Constitution.

Hasdorff emphasized America's Christian foundations and warned against allowing the United States to follow the path she believes some European countries have taken. Her answer was concise but reflected many of the same concerns expressed throughout the discussion.

Evans called for congressional action while stressing the importance of strong families and Christian values. His response leaned more heavily on personal observations than specific policy proposals, but remained consistent with his broader message of preserving constitutional principles.

Overall, there was little disagreement among the candidates on this issue. The discussion centered not on whether they opposed Sharia law, but on the reasons they gave for their opposition and how they believed America should preserve its constitutional and cultural foundations.

Election Integrity

The candidates were asked to respond to President Trump's recent address on election security and discuss how the country can balance strong election integrity measures with the fast, reliable results Florida has become known for. The moderator highlighted Collier County's strong election process as a model and asked what Congress should do to spread that success nationwide while maintaining efficiency.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser said she watched President Trump's address multiple times because the issue was that important. She stressed that Americans must have full confidence in election results and praised Florida's ongoing investments in election security. Drawing on her experience serving on a judicial nominating commission, she argued that dependable elections require continued investment and vigilance. She also supported preventing illegal voting and backed President Trump's priorities on border security, national defense, and law enforcement.

Casey Askar

Askar called Florida's election system a model for the rest of the country. He argued that election integrity requires voter identification, limiting voting to legal citizens, and maintaining secure borders. He referenced events he believes occurred during the 2020 election in Michigan and said Congress must continue strengthening election safeguards so every state can rise to Florida's standard.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara opened his response by saying, "I have four words: The SAVE America Act," signaling his strong support for requiring proof of citizenship in federal elections.

He then credited Governor Ron DeSantis with modernizing Florida's election system during his first term, saying those reforms helped make Florida a national leader in election integrity. Carbonara contrasted Florida's secure and efficient elections with weaker systems in other states and called for additional audits and reforms where needed. He emphasized that restoring public confidence is nonnegotiable because government only works when voters trust the process that puts people in office.

Rich Evans

Evans also voiced strong support for the SAVE America Act and urged Congress to continue advancing election security legislation. He called for holding accountable anyone who violates election laws or fails to carry out their responsibilities. His focus remained on stronger enforcement paired with additional reforms.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff described election integrity as one of the core foundations of the American system of government. She praised Florida's election process as the example the rest of the nation should follow. She also expressed support for organizations working on election integrity and pledged to continue strengthening public confidence in future elections.

Analysis

This question went straight to the heart of what keeps our republic functioning. Every candidate expressed strong support for secure elections, which is exactly what Republican primary voters would expect. There were no weak responses on the stage.

Carbonara's response stood out because he connected Governor DeSantis' election reforms to Florida's success, contrasted them with election systems in other states, and emphasized the importance of restoring public confidence in the electoral process. His answer focused on how proven reforms can strengthen trust while continuing to improve election security.

Askar emphasized voter identification, limiting voting to legal citizens, secure borders, and his concerns about the 2020 election in Michigan, reinforcing his belief that other states should follow Florida's example.

Evans focused on enforcement and accountability. He stressed the importance of advancing legislation such as the SAVE America Act while arguing that those who violate election laws or fail to carry out their responsibilities should be held accountable. His response centered on strengthening public confidence through both stronger laws and consistent enforcement.

Hasdorff described election integrity as a foundational principle of the American system and praised Florida as the model for the rest of the country. She emphasized preserving public confidence and continuing efforts to strengthen election security nationwide.

Keiser highlighted public confidence, her experience serving on a judicial nominating commission, and the importance of continued investment in election security while supporting President Trump's priorities on election integrity.

Overall, the entire field demonstrated a strong commitment to election integrity. While the candidates emphasized different aspects of the issue, Carbonara placed particular emphasis on Florida's election reforms and restoring public trust. Askar focused on voter identification and secure borders, Evans on enforcement and accountability, Hasdorff on preserving confidence in the electoral system, and Keiser on continued investment and oversight. The discussion reflected broad agreement that confidence in elections remains essential to protecting the constitutional republic.

Pro Life

The moderator moved to a topic that is important to Republicans and especially to Ave Maria residents asking what each candidate believes is the greatest threat to the pro life movement. This question hit home in a community that holds these values deeply and it revealed how each candidate approaches one of the most fundamental conservative principles.

Casey Askar

Askar said the greatest threat is the liberal Democratic ideology that we have been fighting for his entire life. As a Catholic raised in a strong conservative household he has been pro life since he can remember. He spoke about his mother his wife and his daughter and made it clear that Christianity and the sanctity of life will always be under attack. He said we need warriors in this fight and he will be one for the voters.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara stated he is pro life and believes in protecting life at all costs. He was happy with the reversal of Roe and especially the Doges decision that stopped taxpayer funds from supporting abortion. He warned that Democrats have reacted by allowing minors to get abortion pills over the counter and through the mail without parental consent. He pointed out the troubling fact that there are actually more abortions now than before because of these tactics and said we must keep fighting hard against Democrat policies that circumvent the protections we have won.

Rich Evans

Evans asked for the question to be repeated then identified apathy as a major threat. While he supports the Republican platform position on protecting the unborn he stressed that people need to get actively involved. He referenced concerns about funding abortion in big spending bills and the need to make sure taxpayer money does not support it.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff identified the greatest threat as the Democratic socialist agenda and the abortion industry. She said life is not protected at all under their approach and it is a core part of their platform. She recalled the successful defeat of Amendment 4 in Florida but warned that it will come back so we must remain vigilant. She emphasized the importance of strongly supporting pro life candidates.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser affirmed her belief in life at conception as a practicing Christian and counselor. She shared personal experiences helping family members and caring for her elderly mother. She said we must continue supporting faith based communities ensure parents can homeschool their children and promote Christian values to defend life.

Analysis

This question mattered a great deal in Ave Maria, and it showed where each candidate stands on protecting the unborn. All five candidates expressed strong pro-life positions, which is what many Republican primary voters expected to hear.

Carbonara's response stood out for connecting recent pro-life victories with the ongoing legal and political battles surrounding abortion. He celebrated major court decisions such as Dobbs while arguing that new strategies, including mail-order abortion pills and expanded access for minors without parental involvement, have changed the landscape. His response focused not only on past victories but also on why he believes the fight continues.

Askar brought personal passion to the discussion, grounding his answer in his Catholic faith, his family, and his call for conservatives to remain engaged in defending life.

Hasdorff was direct in identifying what she views as the greatest threats to the pro-life movement while stressing the importance of remaining vigilant against future efforts such as Amendment 4.

Keiser shared her convictions through her experience as a Christian counselor and emphasized faith, family, and homeschooling as part of a broader culture that values life.

Evans focused on the danger of complacency, arguing that protecting life requires continued involvement and ensuring taxpayer dollars are not used to fund abortion.

Overall, every candidate demonstrated a firm commitment to protecting the unborn. While they approached the issue from different perspectives, Carbonara placed particular emphasis on how the abortion debate has evolved since Dobbs, while the other candidates focused on faith, vigilance, public policy, and continued advocacy. The discussion reflected the strong pro-life convictions shared throughout the field.

In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

The moderator said three audience members had submitted questions about IVF and asked each candidate to explain their position. The discussion focused on balancing support for families struggling with infertility while addressing ethical concerns surrounding embryos created during the IVF process.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara said his belief in the sanctity of life includes supporting families who want to have children and grow their families. He expressed support for President Trump's position on expanding access to fertility treatment. He described IVF as an emotionally and physically difficult journey, particularly for women who go through medications and procedures while hoping to become mothers. Carbonara said these families deserve support throughout that process.

Rich Evans

Evans said IVF is controversial because multiple embryos are often created, and some may ultimately be discarded. He referenced a previous candidate forum where, according to him, the candidates agreed that embryos possess personhood and deserve protection as unique human lives created by God. Evans questioned how anyone could support IVF without first addressing what happens to unused embryos and argued that protecting those embryos should be part of any discussion about fertility treatment.

Exchange Between Evans and Carbonara

Following Evans' remarks, Carbonara clarified that he does not support the destruction of embryos under any circumstances. He said unused embryos can be adopted by families struggling with infertility rather than discarded. Carbonara compared embryo adoption to the adoption of children and said every embryo deserves the opportunity to be carried and born.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff reaffirmed that she is strongly pro-life. She said she supports IVF only if it is conducted in a manner consistent with ethical, pro-life principles and includes appropriate protections for human embryos.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser said she generally prefers less government regulation but believes IVF is an area where safeguards are appropriate. She expressed support for IVF with regulations that protect embryos, explaining that she considers embryos to be human life deserving of protection.

Casey Askar

Askar began by reaffirming that he is pro-life and opposed to abortion. He then shifted the discussion toward broader concerns about fertility, arguing that society should focus on addressing environmental and other factors that he believes contribute to infertility. Sharing a personal conversation with his daughter, Isabella, he said she told him she would not pursue IVF if she could not have children because she believes God has a plan for her life. Askar said he shares that perspective.

Editor's Note

Michael Carbonara founded and led Gattaca Genomics, a reproductive genetics laboratory that performs genetic testing on embryo biopsies from IVF clinics. Based on publicly available information, the company does not create, implant, store, or discard embryos. Its role is to provide genetic testing and reports that physicians and patients may use when making decisions during the IVF process.

Analysis

This question brought real substance because it touches both the deep desire for children and the pro-life principles many in the audience hold dear. It produced one of the more revealing exchanges of the night.

All the candidates showed respect for life while acknowledging the real pain of infertility.

Rich Evans pressed hard on the personhood of embryos and the ethical problem of discarding them, which sparked a useful exchange with Carbonara. Carbonara clarified that he does not support destroying embryos and suggested making unused embryos available for adoption.

Hasdorff stayed consistent with her strong pro-life record requiring full ethical protections.

Keiser favored safeguards and regulation in this area even as she generally prefers less government involvement.

Askar reaffirmed his pro-life stance but pivoted to root causes of infertility and shared a faith-centered personal story about his daughter.

The field as a whole handled the topic with seriousness. No one dismissed the ethical concerns around embryos. This remains a complex moral issue where balancing compassion for families and protection of life is not easy.

Surveillance and Digital Privacy

The moderator asked the candidates how they balance surveillance, digital oversight, and individual privacy at the local, state, and federal levels. The question focused on where they draw the line between public safety and protecting constitutional rights.

Rich Evans

Evans said Americans' privacy has increasingly been threatened by advancing technology. He pointed to Flock cameras as an example, saying they can be valuable tools for law enforcement but can also be misused to track people without sufficient justification.

He argued that technology is advancing faster than legislation and said lawmakers need to establish stronger safeguards before government surveillance expands further. Evans warned against government overreach, comparing it to the worlds portrayed in Brave New World and 1984. He also referenced TSA screening procedures at airports, noting that travelers can opt out of certain forms of screening.

Evans concluded that individuals must continue protecting their rights while lawmakers push back against technologies that could threaten personal privacy.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff described herself as a strong advocate for individual privacy and said she is firmly opposed to government overreach. She expressed concern about surveillance practices in China, describing how facial recognition technology and digital payment systems can be used to monitor citizens and automatically issue penalties for minor violations. She said that is not how Americans or Floridians should live and reaffirmed her opposition to that level of government surveillance.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser said the growing ability of governments and organizations to access private information presents significant challenges. She described herself as a strong supporter of individual rights and privacy and said continued investment is needed to address emerging technologies. Keiser pointed to biometric identification, such as hand and facial recognition, as examples of technologies that raise important privacy concerns.

She also discussed identity theft and online fraud, saying she supports bringing together experts to develop policies that protect individual rights while addressing evolving security threats.

Casey Askar

Askar said many individual rights and freedoms have gradually been eroded over time, often through policies that began with good intentions but expanded beyond their original purpose. He argued that surveillance should be carefully controlled and subject to strong oversight. At the same time, he emphasized the importance of cybersecurity because identity theft and data breaches have become increasingly common. Askar said protecting both security and personal freedom requires the proper balance and oversight.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara said he entered the race to help restore freedom in America and argued that privacy is one of the foundations of that freedom because it limits government overreach. He said younger generations have become increasingly willing to give up their privacy through social media and other technologies and argued that society should do a better job of teaching the importance of protecting personal information.

Carbonara also called for banning Flock cameras, arguing that governments use private contractors to bypass constitutional protections. He said those arrangements undermine Fourth Amendment protections and allow surveillance practices that would otherwise face constitutional limits.

Analysis

This question touched on a growing concern for many conservatives who worry about government overreach in the digital age. The candidates generally agreed on the importance of protecting privacy but differed in the specific concerns they emphasized and the solutions they proposed.

Evans' response stood out for its practical examples. He discussed Flock cameras, TSA screening procedures, and the challenge of technology advancing faster than legislation. His references to Brave New World and 1984 illustrated his broader concern that unchecked surveillance could gradually erode individual liberty.

Carbonara also delivered a detailed response by tying privacy directly to individual freedom and constitutional protections. He argued that governments should not be able to use private contractors to bypass Fourth Amendment protections and called for banning Flock cameras. He also raised the broader cultural issue of teaching younger generations the importance of protecting their personal privacy in an increasingly digital world.

Hasdorff was firm in opposing the type of widespread government surveillance seen in countries such as China.

Keiser focused on emerging technologies, including biometric identification, while emphasizing the need to protect individual rights and combat identity theft.

Askar stressed the gradual erosion of personal freedoms while also recognizing the importance of cybersecurity and strong oversight.

Overall, the candidates recognized the growing challenges posed by advancing surveillance technology and agreed that protecting constitutional rights should remain a priority. Evans and Carbonara approached the issue from different perspectives, with Evans focusing on practical examples and legislative safeguards, while Carbonara emphasized constitutional protections and the broader importance of preserving individual liberty in the digital age.

Property Insurance and FEMA

The moderator noted that flooding and property insurance remain among the biggest expenses facing Florida homeowners. The candidates were asked what changes, if any, they would make to FEMA or federal flood insurance policy to help lower costs for homeowners, particularly those living in flood-prone areas from Lake Okeechobee to Florida's coastal communities.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff said Floridians pay some of the highest property insurance costs in the country and argued that homeowners are carrying an unfair burden compared with residents of many other states. She said insurance companies need to come to the table to find solutions and called for greater dialogue among federal, state, and local leaders to make coverage more affordable. Hasdorff said lowering insurance costs would be one of her priorities in Congress.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser said Florida is a wonderful place to live but acknowledged that property insurance has become one of the state's greatest financial challenges. She noted that some homeowners now pay more for insurance than for their mortgage. Keiser said she believes in market competition and argued that Florida should encourage more private insurers to enter the market to help drive down costs.

She also discussed the role Citizens Property Insurance has played over the years while emphasizing that long-term affordability depends on strengthening the private insurance market. Keiser added that reducing insurance costs is essential to improving housing affordability across the state.

Casey Askar

Askar said Florida offers many advantages over other states, but property insurance remains one of its biggest drawbacks. He argued that insurance companies should be held accountable and accused some insurers of making it unnecessarily difficult for homeowners to collect legitimate claims after hurricanes and other natural disasters.

He also called for greater oversight of insurance companies while encouraging more competition by allowing additional insurers into the market. Askar argued that increased competition would help reduce prices and prevent market concentration.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara described property insurance as one of Florida's biggest challenges, saying rising premiums are making homeownership increasingly difficult because many people cannot obtain affordable insurance required for a mortgage. He expressed support for increasing competition in the insurance market and said additional private insurers would help lower prices.

Carbonara was also highly critical of FEMA, arguing the agency has failed to serve homeowners effectively and should be audited and reformed. He said reducing fraud, improving FEMA's performance, and increasing market competition would help lower insurance costs for Floridians.

Rich Evans

Evans said Florida's property insurance system deserves a closer look and noted his professional background in property and casualty risk management. He argued that catastrophic hurricane losses should be evaluated separately from ordinary insurance claims and said the claims-adjusting process needs stronger oversight.

Evans also supported increasing market competition and expanding the use of reinsurance to help stabilize costs. He added that he has offered to serve on a congressional task force focused on addressing Florida's property insurance challenges.

Analysis

This question hit close to home for many Florida families dealing with skyrocketing insurance premiums and flood risks. Every candidate recognized the seriousness of the problem and focused on practical solutions for improving Florida's insurance market.

Carbonara focused on the relationship between rising insurance costs, homeownership, FEMA reform, and increased competition in the private insurance market. He argued that affordable insurance is essential for homeownership and called for auditing and reforming FEMA while reducing fraud and encouraging additional insurers to enter the Florida market.

Evans brought valuable professional experience in property and casualty risk management, offering specific ideas such as separating catastrophic hurricane losses from ordinary insurance claims, strengthening oversight of the claims-adjusting process, and expanding the use of reinsurance to help stabilize costs.

Askar emphasized holding insurance companies accountable when homeowners file legitimate claims while also supporting greater competition to help lower premiums.

Keiser focused on strengthening the private insurance market and reducing dependence on Citizens Property Insurance, arguing that increased competition is essential to long-term affordability.

Hasdorff highlighted the financial burden high insurance costs place on Florida families and called for greater cooperation among federal, state, and local leaders to help bring costs down.

Overall, every candidate demonstrated a solid understanding of one of Florida's most pressing challenges. Carbonara and Evans offered two of the more detailed responses, with Carbonara emphasizing FEMA reform and market competition, while Evans drew on his professional background to propose practical reforms to Florida's insurance system. The discussion reflected broad agreement that lowering insurance costs must remain a priority for Florida homeowners.

Small Business

The moderator asked the candidates what they would do, if elected, to support small businesses. The discussion focused on reducing barriers to entrepreneurship, encouraging economic growth, and helping small businesses succeed.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser said small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. She argued that lawmakers should look for ways to encourage innovation and support individuals willing to take the risks of starting a business. Drawing on her experience helping build a family business over several decades,

Keiser also emphasized the importance of mentorship programs and teaching entrepreneurship in high school so more young people can envision owning a business one day.

Casey Askar

Askar said the best thing government can do for small businesses is get out of the way and allow the free market to work. Speaking from his own experience as an employer, he argued that entrepreneurs create jobs and invest back into their communities. He said excessive regulation holds businesses back and pointed to entrepreneurs such as Henry Ford as examples of how private enterprise, rather than government, drives economic growth.

Askar said America should unleash small businesses by reducing government interference.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara described himself as an entrepreneur who has started multiple businesses because he enjoys solving problems rather than simply making money. He argued that government should encourage entrepreneurship through tax relief and workforce training rather than direct subsidies.

Carbonara said startup subsidies amount to government intervention in the marketplace and instead called for policies that reward entrepreneurs through lower taxes and job training opportunities.

Rich Evans

Evans said many small businesses are still recovering from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly restaurants and other locally owned businesses. He said the Small Business Administration continues to play an important role but believes it could operate more effectively.

Evans also argued that government should avoid owning or subsidizing private businesses, favoring privatization whenever possible. He expressed support for reducing regulations and referenced President Trump's approach of eliminating multiple existing regulations for every new one adopted.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff said small businesses are the backbone of the country and noted that she is a small business owner herself. She said she wants to work with the Small Business Administration to bring additional resources and opportunities to businesses throughout the district.

Hasdorff also said many small businesses were hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic and called for expanding opportunities, including increasing access to government contracts at both the federal and state levels.

Analysis

Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy, and this question gave the candidates an opportunity to explain how they would help entrepreneurs succeed and create jobs.

Askar and Carbonara both approached the issue from the perspective of experienced entrepreneurs, giving their responses a practical, real-world focus.

Askar emphasized that government should get out of the way and allow the free market to work, drawing on his own experience as an employer and using examples such as Henry Ford to illustrate how innovation and private enterprise drive economic growth.

Carbonara also relied on his entrepreneurial background, arguing that government should encourage small business growth through tax relief and workforce training rather than subsidies. His distinction between rewarding entrepreneurship and having government pick winners through subsidies reflected his broader philosophy of limited government and free-market principles.

Keiser drew on her experience helping build a family business and emphasized mentorship, financial literacy, and teaching entrepreneurship to future generations.

Evans focused on helping businesses continue recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic while supporting regulatory reform, privatization where appropriate, and improving the effectiveness of the Small Business Administration.

Hasdorff highlighted her own experience as a small business owner and emphasized expanding resources and increasing opportunities for small businesses to compete for government contracts.

Overall, every candidate expressed strong support for small businesses. Askar and Carbonara approached the discussion through the lens of firsthand business experience, while Keiser, Evans, and Hasdorff emphasized education, regulatory reform, recovery, and access to additional resources. The discussion reflected broad agreement that reducing unnecessary barriers and encouraging entrepreneurship remain essential to a strong economy.

Dual Citizenship

The moderator asked the candidates whether members of Congress should be permitted to hold dual citizenship and instructed those who agreed to raise their hands.

Result: No candidate raised a hand.

All five candidates indicated that they do not believe members of Congress should hold dual citizenship.

Constituent Services and District Representation

Before closing statements, the moderator asked one final practical question submitted by several audience members.

Acknowledging the size and geographic diversity of Florida's 22nd Congressional District, the moderator asked how each candidate planned to represent such a large area, including whether they would open district offices throughout the district and how they would remain accessible to constituents.

Casey Askar

Askar said representing the entire district requires strong time management and the ability to multitask. He pledged to establish offices throughout the district, including satellite offices, and said communication, accountability, and execution would be central to his approach.

Askar promised to spend time in every county and said effectively managing a large district is challenging but achievable.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara described the district as geographically diverse, stretching across agricultural, suburban, and urban communities. He said he looks forward to representing every part of it while spending as much time in the district as possible rather than in Washington, D.C.

Drawing on his experience as an entrepreneur, Carbonara said successful leadership depends on building strong teams, delegating responsibilities, maintaining communication, and following up. He emphasized that serving constituents is a team effort and said he wants to remain accessible to the people he represents.

Rich Evans

Evans said he has spent much of his career covering large territories and understands the importance of traveling throughout a district and listening to constituents.

He suggested opening multiple district offices and said his campaign has already learned how to operate efficiently across a large geographic area. Evans pledged to be present for every congressional vote while remaining highly accessible, accountable, and responsive to the people of the district. He also reaffirmed his support for congressional term limits.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff drew on her experience working in a congressional office and said constituent service should be one of the defining responsibilities of every member of Congress. She pledged to build well-trained district offices staffed by experienced caseworkers who can respond efficiently to constituent needs.

Hasdorff also said she has heard concerns that parts of the district, including Marco Island, have not always received sufficient attention and promised to ensure every community is well represented.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser said constituent service has been central throughout her decades of leadership at Keiser University, where she managed thousands of employees. She noted that she has already opened campaign offices in West Palm Beach and Broward County and regularly travels throughout the district, including Collier County. Keiser said members of Congress receive a budget to operate district offices and stressed that hiring the right people is critical to providing excellent constituent services.

Referencing the book Good to Great, she said success depends on building a team that genuinely cares about serving others. Keiser concluded by thanking the audience and expressing her appreciation for the district and its communities.

Analysis

This final question shifted away from policy and focused on one of the most important responsibilities of a member of Congress: serving the people back home. While every candidate promised to remain accessible, their answers revealed different leadership styles and priorities for representing Florida's geographically diverse 22nd Congressional District.

Askar emphasized accessibility through multiple district and satellite offices, along with strong communication, accountability, and personal time management. His response focused on making himself available throughout the district and ensuring every county received attention.

Carbonara approached the question from a leadership and management perspective. Drawing on his experience as an entrepreneur, he emphasized building strong teams, delegating responsibilities, and maintaining consistent communication. His commitment to spending as much time as possible in the district, rather than in Washington, reinforced his focus on constituent engagement.

Evans highlighted his experience managing large territories throughout his career, arguing that effective representation requires traveling extensively, listening to constituents, and remaining visible throughout the district. He combined that approach with a commitment to opening multiple district offices, maintaining accountability, and attending every congressional vote.

Hasdorff relied on her experience working in a congressional office, emphasizing that constituent service is one of the core responsibilities of a member of Congress. She focused on building experienced district offices staffed by knowledgeable caseworkers while ensuring that every community, including those that have sometimes felt overlooked, receives equal attention.

Keiser emphasized leadership through organization and people. Drawing on her decades leading Keiser University, she argued that excellent constituent service begins with hiring the right team and creating offices staffed by people who genuinely care about helping others. Her response reflected her long-standing emphasis on leadership, management, and service.

Overall, there was broad agreement that effective constituent service requires accessibility, strong district offices, and regular engagement with voters. The differences centered on how each candidate would accomplish those goals. Askar emphasized presence and communication, Carbonara leadership and teamwork, Evans accessibility and accountability, Hasdorff experienced constituent services, and Keiser organizational leadership. While there was little disagreement, the discussion gave voters a valuable glimpse into how each candidate views the day-to-day responsibilities of serving in Congress.

Closing Statements

Before concluding the debate, the moderator thanked the candidates for participating and acknowledged that, despite many audience questions remaining, time had run out. Each candidate was then given up to three minutes to deliver a closing statement and make a final appeal to voters.

Belinda Keiser

Keiser thanked the audience for attending and described herself as a committed conservative who supports the America First agenda. She said that means securing the border, investing in a strong military, protecting law enforcement, reducing unnecessary government regulations, supporting American manufacturing and agriculture, and creating an environment where small businesses can succeed.

She also emphasized the importance of financial literacy and access to capital for entrepreneurs, explaining that she believes government should create policies that encourage business growth rather than create dependence. Drawing on her decades of leadership at Keiser University, she said her life has been dedicated to service and building successful organizations.

Keiser stressed accountability, saying she supports term limits and wants constituents to contact her directly if they believe she can better represent the district. She also highlighted her longstanding support for President Trump, noting that she was involved with Women for Trump and served as a delegate to the Republican National Convention. She concluded by asking for the audience's vote.

Terri Hasdorff

Hasdorff encouraged voters to approach the election the same way they would hire someone for an important job. She argued that experience, qualifications, and proven ability should matter more than campaign advertising or television commercials.

She said her experience working as a congressional staffer on Capitol Hill distinguishes her from every other candidate in the race. According to Hasdorff, that background has given her firsthand knowledge of how Congress functions, how legislation moves through the process, how appropriations work, and how to effectively serve constituents.

Hasdorff said the country faces a critical moment and that Florida's 22nd District deserves someone who can begin producing results immediately rather than spending time learning the job. She urged voters to carefully examine each candidate's background before making their decision and concluded by asking for their support.

Rich Evans

Evans echoed the idea that the election should be viewed as a job interview, arguing that voters should evaluate each candidate based on their skills, experience, and ability to solve problems.

He highlighted his professional career auditing government agencies, municipalities, school districts, transportation systems, energy organizations, and other large operations. Evans said Congress needs practical leaders who are willing to challenge the status quo instead of accepting business as usual.

He argued that Americans have lost confidence in Congress and said the country needs representatives who are energetic, accountable, and willing to confront difficult problems directly. Evans criticized what he described as politics driven by money and advertising instead of merit, saying the office should be earned through hard work and competence.

He concluded by saying he has the integrity, intellect, and tenacity necessary to serve effectively in Congress and asked for voters' support.

Michael Carbonara

Carbonara introduced himself as a political outsider, entrepreneur, husband, and father of two young daughters who is running for Congress to help President Trump restore conservative values and individual freedom.

He said his campaign is focused on restoring economic freedom, strengthening public safety, protecting personal liberties, and ensuring future generations continue to have access to the American Dream. Carbonara repeatedly emphasized that he is not a career politician but someone entering public service because he believes the country is at a defining moment.

He framed the election as a struggle between good and evil rather than simply a political contest and spoke extensively about the importance of faith throughout his campaign. Carbonara said he has been encouraged by religious leaders who have prayed for his campaign and acknowledged the personal sacrifices required to run for office. He argued those sacrifices are insignificant compared to those made by America's Founding Fathers and said he is prepared to continue making them in defense of the country and its values. He concluded by asking for voters' support and reaffirming his commitment to working alongside President Trump.

Casey Askar

Askar shared his personal story of immigrating to the United States, settling in Collier County twenty-five years ago, building a successful business, raising seven children with his wife, and living what he described as the American Dream.

He reflected on growing up in a blue-collar family, watching his father work at Chrysler, and developing an entrepreneurial mindset at a young age. Askar said he understands firsthand the challenges facing small businesses because he started with a single employee and eventually built companies employing thousands of people, including many throughout the district.

He emphasized his lifelong commitment to conservative values, saying he has consistently supported Republican candidates, believes in secure borders, legal immigration, strong families, and Christian values. Askar also highlighted his family's involvement in the local community, including their church and schools, and pointed to his endorsements as evidence of his character and reputation rather than political influence. He concluded by saying he wants to preserve the American Dream for future generations, stand alongside President Trump, and earn the trust of voters.

Analysis

Closing statements often tell voters more about a candidate than any policy question because they reveal what each person wants voters to remember after the debate ends. Rather than discussing individual issues, the candidates focused on their backgrounds, leadership styles, qualifications, and overall vision for representing Florida's 22nd Congressional District.

All five candidates gave solid closing statements that reinforced the themes they had presented throughout the debate.

Keiser highlighted her decades of leadership experience, accountability to constituents, support for President Trump, and her belief in strengthening the economy through free enterprise and responsible government.

Hasdorff focused on qualifications and experience, arguing that her years working on Capitol Hill make her uniquely prepared to be effective immediately.

Evans emphasized practical leadership, accountability, and replacing business as usual with common-sense problem solving.

Askar delivered a compelling personal message centered on his immigrant story, entrepreneurial success, family, and long-standing conservative convictions.

Carbonara's closing remarks were among the most emotional of the evening. Rather than spending most of his time reviewing his résumé, he focused on why he entered the race and what he believes is at stake for the country. He presented himself as an entrepreneur, husband, father, and political outsider committed to restoring conservative values, individual liberty, and the American Dream. His repeated emphasis on faith, personal sacrifice, and defending America's founding principles gave his remarks a distinctly personal tone that reinforced the themes he had carried throughout the debate.

Overall, all five candidates used their closing remarks effectively. Each left voters with a clear understanding of their priorities, leadership style, and vision for representing Florida's 22nd Congressional District, bringing the debate to a strong conclusion.

Final Thoughts

After spending several hours going through the notes from today’s debate in Ave Maria, one thing became very clear: the voters of Florida’s 22nd Congressional District have a strong field of Republican candidates.

That doesn’t mean they all answered every question the same way. While there was broad agreement on many core conservative principles, the real differences came down to leadership style, experience, depth of knowledge, and how effectively each candidate communicated their vision. Those differences matter, and I hope this recap helped highlight them.

As I said at the beginning, this was never intended to be a transcript or an endorsement. It’s a detailed summary based on my notes, along with my honest analysis. Whenever I offered an opinion, I clearly identified it as such. You may agree with my conclusions. You may not. That’s perfectly fine — that’s how it should be in a real primary.

Debates like this are important. They cut through the campaign ads and mailers and show how candidates think under pressure, how well they understand the issues that hit our families and communities hardest, and whether they have the fight in them to defend Florida’s values in Washington.

Regardless of who ultimately earns your vote, I strongly encourage you to do your own research. Read the candidates’ platforms. Watch the full debate. Ask tough questions. Challenge assumptions — including mine. Democracy is strongest when citizens are informed, engaged, and unwilling to settle for anything less than real conviction.

Thank you for taking the time to read this recap. I hope it helped you better understand the candidates, the issues, and the choices we face in this district.

An informed voter is far more powerful than any endorsement.