An interview with Tom Kean Jr.

This is the fourteenth in a series of in-person, in-depth New Jersey Globe interviews with New Jersey’s members of Congress. The interviews will be published as-is, with editing for length and clarity.

This week, the Globe spoke with Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-Westfield), a two-term Republican from Union County who serves on the House Energy & Commerce and Foreign Affairs Committees. The Globe sat down with Kean to discuss his new committee assignments, his thoughts on the Trump administration’s increasingly hostile approach towards Ukraine, his hopes for upcoming tax legislation, and more.

Previous interviews: then-Rep. Andy Kim, Rep. Chris Smith, the late Rep. Bill Pascrell, Rep. Rob Menendez, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, Rep. Jeff Van Drew, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, Sue Altman (in place of Kean, who initially turned down the Globe’s interview offer last year), Rep. Donald Norcross, then-Senator George Helmy, Rep. Frank Pallone, Rep. Herb Conaway

New Jersey Globe: You joined the New Jersey General Assembly in 2001, when Republicans held a trifecta. And then they lost it that November, and you’ve never been part of a governing Republican majority since then – until right now. What’s it like, for pretty much the first time in your political career, being part of a governing majority party that is accomplishing things?

Tom Kean Jr.: My approach is the exact same. First and foremost, it’s to listen to people, and focus on their priorities. It doesn’t matter to me whether I’m in the majority or in the minority. My focus remains the same: listening to constituents, making sure they get their priorities answered and followed through with. I’ve been in the majority. I’ve been in the minority. I’ve been in a split chamber, in the State Senate [when Republicans and Democrats each held 20 seats from 2002 to 2004]. I’ve gotten legislation through, like a bill last year that focused on firefighters and was signed into law by President Biden. My focus stays the same. Number one, listen. Number two, look at the priorities that people sent us down here to focus on. Just like I was focused on affordability issues when I was first elected in the General Assembly, my focus here is making sure we secure the southern border, that we rein in irresponsible spending, that we have the backs of cops, that we’re energy independent again, that we stand with our allies at home and abroad. I take those responsibilities very seriously.

You and I made a similar transition at about the same time, switching over from state politics to national politics in 2023. What was that transition like – going from the very particular closed loop of New Jersey legislative politics into this much bigger scene in Washington?

The approach is the exact same. I worked for the EPA under Bush 41 – it’s where I met my wife, Rhonda. I worked on the hill for Bob Franks when he served in both the minority and in the majority. I worked on the state level. What I learned throughout that entire time is that I love solving people’s problems. I’m able to identify solutions, find that common ground, and work with whatever the framework is to actually get that problem solved. It’s important that you listen to the people who are approaching you directly; their challenges and their issues, those are my priorities.

This year, you’ve joined the Energy & Commerce Committee; that’s definitely a big step up, both in terms of prominence and in terms of the legislative work that’s in front of you. It’s going to be a big committee this year when it comes to reconciliation legislation, when it comes to debates over health care and environmental policy – what are you hoping for out of that committee’s work this year?

New Jersey is an innovative state. We’ve got a lot of health care and manufacturing issues within the state, and we need to make sure that we find the cures to cancer and create an ecosystem where businesses can thrive. The health care subcommittee is one of those platforms where we can actually focus on curing rare diseases – to have innovation in this country, to have policies that are consistent, so that people are investing and researching here in this country. I’m also on the data privacy task force. We need to ensure that we’re going to be outcompeting China while ensuring online privacy and data protection. And the third area is energy independence. We’ve got an all-of-the-above energy strategy; New Jersey is 42% nuclear, 49% natural gas right now, and if we’re going to be focusing on the things that are important to future affordability and future innovation, we need to ensure that we’re energy independent.

The committee is very much in the news right now because of the budget resolution that passed last week. A lot of New Jersey members, especially former Energy & Commerce chairman Frank Pallone, have been talking about this directive that the committee cut $880 billion in spending; they’re saying that that is inevitably going to come in part out of Medicaid. You voted for that resolution – are you concerned about potential cuts down the line? Are you in conversation with Republican leaders about trying to prevent cuts like that?

Fearmongering, in any way, is absolutely irresponsible. We created the framework – Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid were not mentioned at all in any of those policy frameworks. What we are focusing on together, and my hope is we can find bipartisan support, is protecting Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare for the beneficiaries who are relying on them. That’s a sacred task that we have. We need to ensure that we also get out the waste, the fraud, and the abuse that’s endemic all too often in government spending right now. And we can do both.

We’re looking at making sure that people who are here illegally do not get those benefits. But when we look at the things that are necessary for the future, we need to understand how every single dime is being spent; we need to make sure that if there is waste or fraud or abuse, that it’s tackled, that it’s transparent; and we need to make sure that we protect Medicaid for future generations.

What Pallone has been saying, and there was a New York Times report that corroborated it, is that it’s not necessarily realistic to make the type of cut that the resolution lays out without cutting into Medicaid benefits. Do you think that’s wrong?

I think when you look at issues regarding waste, fraud, and – part of what we’re looking at through the Department of Government Efficiency is getting a 21st-century accounting system to identify any improper payments, so that we can make sure that the Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare programs are healthy and strong and working as they’re supposed to. If we’re going to be doing what’s necessary, we need to protect the Medicaid program.

If there is a reconciliation bill that comes out later this year that, using this blueprint, does in fact contain a cut to Medicaid – or Medicare, or Social Security, or another one of these big federal programs – would it lose your support for that reason?

We need to protect Medicaid. We need to protect Social Security. We need to protect Medicare as well. And first, we need to focus on making sure we wring out any of the waste, and the fraud and the abuse that is endemic within the program.

The flipside to any talk about cutting spending is cutting taxes, and that’s going to be a big focus of whatever bill Republicans end up writing. One of your biggest focuses is the State and Local Tax deduction cap, and getting that deduction back, at least in part; I know you met with the president earlier this year about that. Where do negotiations on SALT stand right now?

I’m the only person who voted against that tax package last year from New Jersey solely because it did not include SALT restoration. [Rep. Frank Pallone also opposed the bill, but he did not do so due to SALT-related issues.] My position continues to be the same. I’m focused on making sure we get a full restoration. That’s my beginning negotiating point. I’m meeting with the president, I’m meeting with his team, I’m meeting with Republicans and Democrats alike, because it’s an unfair tax increase on the hardworking families of New Jersey. I’m talking to people about the cost of government in New Jersey, the high property taxes, and this is one of the ways to tackle that.

Do you think that a full restoration of the SALT deduction is in the cards right now?

I’m fighting for a full restoration. We shouldn’t start any negotiation from a point less than that. We’re going to be focusing on the broader package; the rest of the 2017 tax structure created economic opportunities, but the SALT deduction cap was unfair to the families of New Jersey, and we need to get it restored.

I saw reporting that you and a few other very pro-SALT members have formed a coalition to say, “We need to do SALT if you want our votes on this.” Are you – 

As I said to you earlier, I voted against a bill last year – the only member of the New Jersey delegation who voted against that tax bill because it did not include a SALT restoration in any way, shape, or form. The [Inflation Reduction Act], years before, was supposed to include a SALT restoration, and Joe Biden and House and Senate Democrats didn’t keep their word on SALT restoration. Think about this: the people who oppose SALT restoration – Bernie Sanders opposes the SALT restoration. We need to find Republicans and Democrats alike who understand it’s an issue of affordability.

There are also a fair number of Republicans who oppose it, right? Or at least it wouldn’t be their first policy choice because they represent rural Kentucky or wherever?

This is why, as I’ve explained to people, this is an affordability issue. If we’re going to allow families to be able to stay in New Jersey, to be able to grow in New Jersey, to own their first home in New Jersey, we need to get the SALT restoration back. If we’re focused on the ways to grow businesses and allow for companies, small medium and large, to hire the best talent that exists in the in the country, and ensure that we have strong public education systems – the way you’re going to achieve that is by getting SALT restored. I’m working with Republicans and Democrats alike to get that done.

Are you telling leadership right now, “If you don’t do SALT restoration, then you lose my vote on X or Y”? Is that where you’re at right now?

I’ve been very clear, both last year and this year, that we need to have SALT restoration in any tax package that’s coming out of Congress in order for me to support it.

You are also on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and you were the chairman of the subcommittee on Europe last year. Right now, the U.S. relationship with Ukraine is definitely in an uncomfortable spot. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you’ve stood very firmly as someone who supports Ukrainian independence, the Ukrainian war effort – what do you make of the language and attitude that’s coming out of the White House, which seems to be increasingly backing away from any commitments like that? [This interview took place prior to Trump’s suspension of military aid to Ukraine.]

Ukraine was invaded, the second time, because of Joe Biden’s weakness in pulling out of Afghanistan. I was very clear when I ran for office, as well as now – I was with President Zelensky in Ukraine as well as here in Washington D.C. to make sure, on a bipartisan basis, that we get the weapons necessary to, in a timely fashion, defeat Putin. Putin is a war criminal. He’s sanctioned me.

I would recommend to President Zelensky that he needs to come back to Washington D.C. and negotiate with President Trump if we’re going to get a real peace deal in Europe and stand united against Vladimir Putin. President Zelensky needs to come back to Washington D.C., negotiate on the minerals deal, and continue to build the ties that bind. It’s extraordinarily important that the people of Ukraine and the people of the United States are united in their opposition to Putin, because at the end of the day, the best thing that will stand against any further Russian aggression is European leaders adding to the defense budgets to support NATO, and a unified position between the leadership of the United States and the leadership of Ukraine.

You’re putting the onus on Zelensky to come back and negotiate, and maybe that’s what needs to happen. But do you think the Trump administration is making any missteps in the way that it’s handling this? I mean, it’s clearly putting forward a more hostile stance to Ukraine than was true under the Biden administration, whatever your critiques of the Biden administration might have been.

Ukraine was invaded because Biden was weak. It was the second time they were invaded over the course of the last decade and a half. We pushed Biden, on a bipartisan basis, to make sure that Ukraine had the weaponry and the aid that was necessary to fight the illegal Russian invasion. President Trump understands the importance of creating energy and this minerals deal to increase economic ties, to continue to make sure that we are unified to defeat Putin. And the best way to get that done is for President Zelensky to come back to the United States, negotiate this minerals deal, and continue to put forward a united front against a Russia that wants to be expansionist once again.

You’re laying this out as, President Biden was weak, that’s what led to the invasion of Ukraine. But do you think the language coming out of the White House right now is, in fact, the best language to be supporting Ukraine?

President Trump has been very clear: we need to have peace in Europe, and we need to stand unified against an illegal Russian invasion. The best way to ensure that we have peace in Europe and stand up against further Russian invasions is to have President Zelensky come back to the United States and start to renegotiate the mineral deals, so that we can continue to make sure that we have trade that continues to grow, economic affiliations that continue to grow, and we can stand firm against illegal actions by Putin.

One other foreign affairs-related topic: the U.S. Agency for International Development, an agency that didn’t necessarily make many headlines until this year, is now all over the place because the Trump administration is heavily curtailing its activities, folding it into the State Department and reducing a lot of its spending. As someone advocates for a generally pretty strong international presence for America, what do you think about those decisions by the White House?

The most important thing, when people look at U.S. federal government spending, is: is it being done with the intent of the taxpayers? Every dollar that goes out is a U.S. taxpayer dollar. Whether it’s being done with taxpayer intent, and with full transparency in how those expenditures are going out the door, is important. When you look at these accounting measures so you can see where the money is going, what its intended purpose is, who the beneficiaries are – when you look at some of the people who have received aid from USAID, they’re terrorists in the Middle East! And that’s unacceptable.

So I think what’s necessary is, if you’re looking at the humanitarian might of the United States, the military might of the United States, the economic might of the United States, the innovative might of the United States – we need to ensure that every single taxpayer dollar is being spent both with transparency and accountability. Having that type of research is necessary so that we, in Congress, can better understand how those taxpayer dollars are being spent. People need to have confidence at home, as well as abroad, that these important taxpayer dollars are being efficiently spent.

Do you wish you, in Congress, had more ability to specifically direct what’s going on with a lot of this spending? Theoretically, Congress controls the purse and the president then lays out the money, but in this case, it’s going in reverse; they’re not just recommending cuts, they’re making cuts.

We are a separate and coequal branch of government. The Chevron case allows for greater oversight and greater transparency in how the federal government is spending and implementing programs that Congress authorizes. Everything that the president is authorizing to happen right now is supported by members of Congress.

In Congress, it’s extraordinarily important that we have the oversight necessary. The Chevron case is extraordinarily important to help us in that regard. I think we’ve got a great oversight mechanism.

I’ve been seeing Republican members in other districts going back home and having town halls, and definitely getting a bit of an earful from constituents about some of these cuts. What have you been hearing from your constituents in this first month of the Trump term?

It’s always important that I listen to my constituents. I have a tele-town hall a month, where I can reach thousands of constituents. Veterans’ town halls, student town halls, senior town halls as we’re going throughout the district; hundreds of constituents a week when I’m back in the district. We have a weekly newsletter as well. And every single time that somebody comes into the office, or via email, I read those emails, I listen to the phone calls – I did this on the state level, and I do it now in Congress.

What people are telling me is, they want to be energy independent. They want to lower the overall cost of goods. They want to have a strong southern border. They want to focus on getting the SALT restoration back for affordability’s sake. They want to be able to have a more affordable country.

What do you think the role of the U.S. should be, going forward, in space exploration? You’re a former member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee – as we discuss what counts as wasteful spending, what should be continued, do you think that the U.S. should have a serious presence in space exploration programs?

Absolutely. I think it’s necessary. The Energy & Commerce subcommittee on which I serve focuses on space commerce – it’s one of the things that’s exciting about it! We need to lead, and NASA needs to be supported. If you’re looking at the original moon landing, we had to be unified on purpose. It’s a focus on science, a focus on innovation, a focus on engineering solutions, and making sure that we’re leading the way over China, Russia, and anybody else. We need to get to the moon again, we need to get to Mars again –

Again? You know something I don’t.

Sorry – moon again, and to Mars. I just read The Martian.

We need to lead in the economic and finance system so that everything’s based in the dollar, and the strategies are based around western principles around the globe. If the New York Times and others are to be believed, what Russia tried to do regarding nuclear weapons, potentially, in space; and when you look at Iran and Russia coming together on blocking the Strait of Hormuz; and China and what it’s trying to do in its engineering in space race – we need to beat them. And we need to beat them with a model that works, that ties the American people together on an important focus, which is having a western-based system among our satellites, as well as having an innovation focus going forward. That’s one of the things that President Kennedy talked a great deal about, and we need to continue with those efforts.

A lot of people in New Jersey politics are ignoring everything that people like us are doing right now, and instead they’re focusing on what’s happening in state-level elections. What do you make of the current governor’s race and race for the legislature? Do you think that you might weigh in on the governor’s race in the Republican primary?

I’m not weighing in in the primary. We’ve got some great candidates, and it’s important that they talk with the voters and listen to the voters. Over the last two decades, when Democrats have been in charge of the legislature, they have made the streets less safe and have made New Jersey less affordable. When the Democrats have had control of government, they’ve increased taxes and made neighborhoods and streets less safe. I think people are focused on those issues, so I think we’ll have a Republican Assembly, and I also think we’re going to be able to win the governorship as well. I will be supporting whomever wins the Republican nomination.

Looking even further ahead to your own race – as you’ve learned from your last three campaigns, being a swing-district congressman is a full-time job. It never really ends. How are you feeling, very early on, looking ahead to 2026 and the Trump midterm?

My responsibility, as we talked about at the beginning of this conversation, is always on the needs of my constituents: answering their questions and doing the best job I can on their behalf. When I was in the Assembly and the Senate and a leader of the Republican caucus, my focus was always on the future of my constituents, and now what I will continue to talk about is getting things done for my constituents. We’ve returned over $16 million in casework, we’ve solved 3,000 cases – homeless veterans and Social Security checks and veterans’ awards and tax issues, we’ve been able to solve people’s problems by listening to them.

I started by talking about your early days in the legislature, but the Kean family goes back much farther than that. You’ve got your dad [former Gov. Tom Kean Sr.], you’ve got your grandfather [the late Rep. Robert Kean], you’ve got William Livingston [the first governor of New Jersey, from 1776 to 1790] – that’s a longer pedigree than almost any other member of Congress, I would imagine. Does being the latest in that line figure into your work? Does it weigh on your work at all?

I grew up on stories of my grandfather helping to solve people’s problems, helping to protect Social Security – he served in Congress for 20 years, and I had people who have come up to me who were directly helped by my grandfather. My dad was in the Assembly when I was born; he was governor for eight years when I was in middle school, high school, and college. I saw people come up to him and talk about the issues they cared about – whether it was in a grocery store or a movie theater – and he listened to people, and he said, “Okay, this is how we’re going to help solve your problem.”

And so when I look at tackling issues, I always focus first and foremost on listening to people. My focus is on listening, solving that problem, and finding the bipartisan common ground – issues with firefighters, on space exploration, on energy independence. I joined the Problem Solvers Caucus, and I was recognized by the Problem Solvers Caucus for, within a couple months of taking office, helping to create the framework for the Fiscal Responsibility Act that President Joe Biden signed into law. It doesn’t matter if you’re in the majority or the minority: people want their problems solved, and I listen to their needs and their concerns. Those are my priorities.