In the final weeks before the general election on Nov. 3, NHPR's Morning Edition is sitting down with the candidates for U.S. Senate to dig into the issues that listeners tell us are on their minds. This week, we spoke with Republican John Sununu.
Here are some takeaways from our conversation with Sununu. A full transcript of his conversation with Morning Edition host Rick Ganley follows below.
On Russia and Ukraine
- Opposes Trump’s recent lifting of sanctions on Russian diesel: “I think it's a bad idea.”
- Says the U.S. needs to do more to support Ukraine in its war against Russia: “I hope [the Trump administration] will provide intelligence and military assistance to Ukraine. And obviously, the goal of the sanctions and our support of Ukraine is to push Russia to the negotiating table and to bring an end to the war.”
On affordability
- Favors bringing more “clean hydro” from Canada.
- Favors expanding transmission infrastructure for natural gas in New Hampshire.
On Immigration
- Supports more training and oversight of ICE officers, including the “universal use” of body cameras: “I think many of the officers didn't look well disciplined or well trained.”
On Social Security reform
- Favors a bipartisan approach to ensuring Social Security’s long-term solvency: “You can't have legislation that's going to disappear and have to be reauthorized after two or three years, but it has to be done on a bipartisan level.”
- Opposes cuts to benefits for retirees.
What questions do you have about this year's elections? Let us know at voices@nhpr.org, and we could help you get the answers.
Find all of our 2026 election coverage here.
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
When you were here last, we spoke about affordability, which, as you know, is still a big issue on voters' minds. One topic you raised briefly during that conversation was energy. And as we head into the colder months, many Granite Staters are going to struggle with the cost of heating their homes. How would you address that?
Sure. You know, there are short term things we can do to address it, and long term. In the near term our heating fuel assistance program, really important part.
LIHEAP? (the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program)
LIHEAP, yes. But it's fuel assistance and even energy assistance in the summer months too. It's an important program, certainly one I've supported in the past. You know, here in New Hampshire, we're very fortunate. That's generally administered by the Community Action Programs. They're regional, some county based, some locally based. And they do a terrific job, not just with LIHEAP and fuel assistance, but with other programs that are driven at the community level. And, I've always supported the CAPs and then they have a counterpart as well, the community health centers, and we can talk a little bit more about those. But on energy, that's a short term issue, one that's important to address.
Do you support seeing more money put into programs like LIHEAP?
I think so. You know, I don't know what the exact program level is now. I've certainly supported increases in funding during my past service in Congress, so no reason I wouldn't do so in the future. Now, energy longer term: infrastructure. We do need to make sure we have one strong and reliable electricity transmission for all sources of energy. I think there are opportunities to bring more clean hydro in from Canada. Obviously, as we develop offshore wind, you're going to need a reliable electric transmission system. And so, permitting approval for that transmission is really important.
As you know, that's been tough in the past.
It's been tough in the past, but there's a bipartisan proposal that's ready to be voted on in the lame duck session. It's certainly something that I support and it's important for people to understand: permitting reform doesn't mean everything gets approved, and it shouldn't mean that. What it means is that for a modest project, you get an up or down decision in a reasonable amount of time, say a year. Bigger projects, maybe a year and a half.
And look, another important piece of infrastructure is transmission for natural gas, right? It's clean. It's very flexible. In central New Hampshire it's hard to get a new hookup because we just don't have the natural gas capacity we need in New Hampshire. Final thought on energy is, it's wrong to mandate that providers buy electricity at above-market rates and are allowed to jam those costs through to their customers. That's something we've got to stop.
President Trump recently announced a deal to import Russian diesel to the U.S., which he says will bring down fuel costs. What do you think of that move?
I think it's a bad idea. I don't think it's going to significantly bring down fuel costs. And it obviously helps Russia. And we just passed a secondary sanctions bill on Russia, which I certainly supported. And I think this runs a little bit counter to at least to the spirit, if not the letter of those secondary sanctions. It's something that I don't think is necessary and I don't support.
In his time in office, Trump has shown a willingness to work with Vladimir Putin, even as Russia continues to wage war against Ukraine. What do you think of this administration's approach to Russia? And what, if anything, would you like to see change?
It has been too close. They haven't done enough to support Ukraine. It's something I've talked about very consistently through the campaign. The secondary sanctions bill that was co-sponsored by Sen. Shaheen is something I've supported from the very beginning and I think should have been implemented much earlier in this administration. And that was a real opportunity lost. So, I'm glad it's there now. I hope they'll provide intelligence and military assistance to Ukraine. And obviously, the goal of the sanctions and our support of Ukraine is to push Russia to the negotiating table and to bring an end to the war.
Let's talk about something that listeners bring up quite often: Social Security. It has come up on the campaign trail as well. But as you've noted, much has changed on this front since your last time in Congress. What would your approach be to reforming Social Security to ensure that it's got a sound future?
Well, a couple of thoughts. First of all, I think it's a shame that Congress hasn't done anything on this in the last 10 years. And that's my first question to members of Congress, Chris Pappas, who I'm running against. He's been there for eight years and he hasn't put forward any substantive proposals.
So what would you like to see done?
Well, let me be clear, though, okay? This is an opportunity lost over the last 10 years. And members of Congress have to be held to account for failing to address this enormous, enormous problem, number one. Two: Chris Pappas has made hay of the fact that 20 years ago I was willing to work on this issue. I was willing to focus on ways to make the Social Security system solvent and the legislation that I proposed then, which unfortunately probably isn't the right legislation today, but that legislation would have made the system solvent. It was scored by the Social Security actuaries as making the system solvent. So if that legislation had been passed, we wouldn't be having this conversation, Rick.
I kind of want to get to exact specifics of what you would like to do. Are you looking to raise the retirement age, lift the income threshold? What are you looking to do to make it solvent?
This can't be a proposal today with just six years to go, that's written on a partisan level. This has to be done in a bipartisan way. I'm willing to reach across the aisle to work with members on the other side to try to find the right solution. One: guaranteed benefits for all of our retirees. I never voted to cut benefits, and I never will. Second, whatever we do, it has to be transparent. It has to be done out in the open. It should be done through the committee process and goodness knows it can't have any gimmicks or, you know, one-timers. You can't have legislation that's going to disappear and have to be reauthorized after two or three years, but it has to be done on a bipartisan level.
There's no specifics, though, that you could point to at the moment that you would propose?
No. And the simple reason is because the other side will use whatever proposal you put out to scare retirees. You've been around this a long time, Rick. You've seen the scare tactics. And what's so wrong about it is they use the language to scare current retirees who obviously aren't going to be affected by any legislation or proposal. It's the worst kind of politics there is.
Sure. But do voters deserve to know the specifics of what you have in mind for this?
Voters deserve to know that they're voting for John Sununu, who's been willing to step up and work on this issue in a substantive and bipartisan way in the past. Or, the alternative is Chris Pappas, who's done nothing on this issue for eight years and has used the issue in an incendiary way to scare current seniors. And that's simply wrong. That's not New Hampshire. That's not the way that we should be approaching an issue as important as this.
Let's turn to immigration. The president is focused on a heavily law enforcement and deportation based immigration policy. I know you've spoken about modernizing immigration programs. What do you mean by that? Do you have some specifics on that?
Well, legal immigration, yes, we can certainly talk about that. But I think it's important to note that the borders really, for the first time in decades, are finally secure. And it has had an impact.
Obviously, the homicide rate is the lowest it's been in recorded history, to the best of my knowledge. Fentanyl coming across the border has been reduced, and that's made an impact nationally on fentanyl overdoses and in New Hampshire, right? We had a huge fentanyl issue and crisis, and overdose deaths have really been reduced.
On legal immigration: Because we have secure borders, we can now engage, I think, in a really meaningful conversation about how you modernize. So you have seasonal visas, H-2as – could be agricultural, could be travel and tourism – which is a really important visa program for New Hampshire. Then you have health care workers, H-1bs. I think each of these can be dealt with individually. So make sure that the numbers available are sufficient to support our economy. And I think in some cases on the seasonal visas, they're not. And on the seasonal visas as well, you know, make sure you have good technology that can be used to obviously track the beneficiaries, but the seasonal ones are one of the easiest ones to track because you serve for maybe six months, and then you go home. And you can verify that the seasonal immigrant is going home.
Health care visas, obviously, this is a real area of need and one that I think probably warrants expanded numbers. But then there's H-1bs. And I think H-1bs – we've seen recent headlines – is one area that's probably been used too aggressively by tech companies. There's no question in some cases, those tech workers from overseas have been used to displace domestic workers.
Sure, and we've seen the administration put limits on this and obviously raise fees dramatically to try to reduce that.
And I think that's one, though, where I'm just saying that's one where the numbers probably need to be made tight. Sure. And if there's a reasonable fee increase, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, because most of these tech companies have plenty of resources to pay for that.
And I know you've said ICE agents should not be masked and should wear body cameras. Is that enough, given what we've seen about some of the more aggressive tactics being used around the country as far as deportation?
Sure. Well, I think the universal use of body cameras is an important start. I think better training, though, is essential.
So you'd be for more reform for ICE.
Absolutely, absolutely. And look, many frustrations here. But one of them was I think many of the officers didn't look well disciplined or well trained. Now, you know, I'm just viewing what you might be viewing. But yes, more training, oversight. There's never anything wrong with oversight. If you're doing your job, doing it well, you should welcome oversight. So I hope these are things that Secretary Homan takes to heart. And they're well needed.
Do you have concerns about due process?
I always have concerns about due process. I mean, as you're aware, I filibustered, stopped the Patriot Act. Tthey tried to put in new surveillance powers under the Patriot Act. I was concerned about civil liberties, due process, protection for constitutional rights. Whether you're a citizen or not, you deserve due process. It may not be identical, but there are requirements that certainly you can be represented by counsel, that your deportation order has to be adjudicated. And we need to make sure that those are things that are followed no matter who the individual is and what their circumstance might be.
If you return to the Senate, you'll have a vote on nominees to the Supreme Court. Do you support age limits for justices?
That's a great question. I don't. I've not supported age limits for justices or even for members of the Senate. But goodness knows, there are many members of the Senate that have served way too long. I support term limits for the House and the Senate, and I think that's the best way to ensure a turnover, to ensure that you don't end up with members who serve 40 years and, you know, fail to be responsive to the needs of their constituents or the country.
What about expanding the size of the court?
No. Look, the court size of nine has worked well. It's worked well with Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, and in good times and in tough times. And the fact that the court turned back the president on tariffs and on birthright citizenship and on other issues I think is an indication that the system works pretty well, even in a tough and polarized time like today.
You said you're looking at term limits. Are you going to serve one term? Is that it?
I'm definitely not worried about reelection. I'm not ever running for any other office. And more importantly, look, I don't care what anyone in Washington thinks. I've said I have one job as senator: be an independent voice for New Hampshire and stand up for the people of New Hampshire every single day. And that's what I'm committed to.
