U.S. Senator Alex Padilla ’94 discusses changing careers and federal policy with The Tech
Padilla: “I know that I speak for a lot of my colleagues when I say that we should be investing more in our universities, in research, and in students — not less”
PHOTO Provided by Edgar Rodriguez
Photo Provided by Edgar Rodriguez
U.S. Senator Alex Padilla ’94, Democrat from California, first decided to pivot from engineering to politics because of what he saw as cynical messaging around California’s Proposition 187 — an effort to bar unauthorized immigrants from social services like public education. He thought the proposition was a poorly-disguised stab at “scapegoating immigrants” by then-Republican Governor Pete Wilson. Prop 187 passed, but it was later deemed unconstitutional by a federal district court.
That was back in 1994, shortly after he graduated MIT. These days, the White House has intensified its crackdown on both immigration and higher education. And, in June, federal agents tackled and forcibly removed Padilla from a homeland security press conference on immigration-related protests in Los Angeles.
On Friday, Oct. 17, The Tech interviewed Sen. Padilla by phone. The senior Senator from California discussed his switch from engineering to politics, President Trump’s higher education and immigration policy, and his vision for the future; he also shared advice for those at MIT — and, more broadly, those from engineering backgrounds — who have aspirations in public service.
The son of Mexican immigrants, Padilla was born and raised in California’s San Fernando Valley, north of downtown Los Angeles. His mother was a housekeeper, and his father was a short-order cook. After attending San Fernando High School, he made his way across the country to Cambridge to attend MIT, where he graduated with a Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering. Before entering politics, he had a brief stint as a software engineer for aerospace contractor Hughes Aircraft.
Spurred by Proposition 187, Padilla began his political career back in California as a campaign manager: first for Assemblyman Tony Cárdenas, then for Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, and finally for State Senator Richard Alarcón. He also worked as a field representative for the late Senator Dianne Feinstein. In 1999, Padilla entered electoral politics, winning a seat on the Los Angeles City Council at age 26. He was elected to the California State Senate in 2006 and sworn in as California Secretary of State in 2015. The corridors of Washington finally welcomed Padilla in 2021, after Governor Gavin Newsom appointed him to the senate seat vacated by former Vice President Kamala Harris. He later won an election for a full term in 2022.
Padilla is the only current United States Senator who graduated from MIT, and he is one of six currently on Capitol Hill with ties to MIT. In the House, Rep. Thomas Massie ’93 SM ’96 (R-KY) and Rep. Luz Rivas ’95 (D-CA) also completed their undergraduate education at the Institute. Rep. Jake Auchincloss MBA ’16 (D-MA) and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan SM ’94 (D-PA) both earned graduate degrees, and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) briefly attended a PhD program at MIT. Padilla is also unique for being the sole former engineer in a Senate where nearly half hold law degrees — although the percentage of lawyers in Congress has been declining over recent decades.
According to The New York Times, Sen. Padilla is known in Washington for being “kind and nerdy” and not as “spotlight-seeking” as other politicians. Yet he has recently been attracting increased national attention in part due to his deeply personal resolve for issues that are top of mind for many Americans. Below is a transcription of The Tech’s conversation with the Senator.
The following has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
The Tech: How have your experiences at MIT prepared you for a career in public service? Have the problem sets or the engineering mindset helped you with thinking about politics? How did issues in California like Proposition 187 make you decide to change careers in the first place?
Padilla: Well, to answer the first question: people do ask me all the time, how do you go from engineering to politics? Because for a lot of people, it may seem like a stretch. And I jokingly tell people: well, to me, it’s pretty logical — engineers are trained to solve problems, and I think that’s what policymakers are supposed to be doing. That’s why people run for city council. That’s why people run for the legislature. That’s why people seek office, including in the United States Senate. There are a lot of issues to work on. And we do need more of that critical thinking, problem-solving approach to govern and improve the lives of people across the country.
The full story is, as you mentioned, when I first returned home from MIT — right after graduation — there was this measure on the ballot in California known as Proposition 187. It was the first major sort of immigrant scapegoating, villainizing political effort that I recall not only observing but also experiencing. The negativity in that campaign was very, very palpable. So even though I was at the point of beginning my career, I knew that I needed to get involved in electoral politics to try to defend the honor of the community that I grew up in, including my own family, and try to move California in a better direction. The engineering degree still looks nice on the wall, but I never looked back in terms of public service. I started off with campaign and organizing work. A few years later, I ran for office and I’ve worked in city government, state government, and now at the federal level.
Along the way, I really do think that my MIT education has been very helpful. If you look at some of the most critical policy issues today — whether it’s tackling climate change, improving healthcare, cybersecurity, or even leveraging the promise and potential of new technology like artificial intelligence — having technical background and proficiency is extremely valuable in thinking through these big questions.
TT: What advice do you have for MIT students who have aspirations in public service, but don’t know where to start?
Padilla: I think it’s great to have aspirations in public service. And it’s not an either/or — I think everybody, regardless of your degree of study, is passionate about some issue, and there are opportunities to weigh in civically on those specific issues. Public service comes in many shapes and forms. It doesn’t require you to run for office to be engaged. There’s a lot of opportunities to serve on different boards or commissions to lend your perspective and expertise. Even being on staff in a policymaker’s office or in a relevant department or agency can help inform public policy and key decision making.
So my advice, I think, is first for somebody to consider what issue it is that they’re passionate about — maybe it’s climate change, maybe it’s healthcare, maybe it’s improving education, maybe it’s immigration, maybe it’s something else — because that can at least serve as a guide to pursuing opportunities at the federal level, or the state level, or the local level. So that’s number one. But there’s no shortage of opportunities to be a volunteer or an intern initially, just to get your foot in the door.
TT: Marc Rowan, an author of the White House’s college compact, wrote in an op-ed that elite colleges lack ideological diversity, and that the government should play a role in reform since taxpayers fund research. What do you say to that? How do you feel about the President’s position on higher education, research funding, and MIT’s decision on the compact?
Padilla: So a few things: First of all, their claims couldn’t be any further from the truth. A lot of the best universities in America are good because of their diversity [of people] and diversity of thought on campus. The rigorous intellectual debate that is part of the learning experience at these schools is created by the diversity on campus. So that’s what I think about that. I am proud that MIT was the first university to say no to the proposed compact and the conditions that the Trump administration is seeking to impose.
But I would also like to remind ourselves that there’s a bigger picture here: for as much as the Trump administration would like to reshape institutions of higher learning to align with their values and vision sets, their target is not just universities. He has politically pressured Congress to try to do his bidding and fulfill his agenda; he’s trying to reshape the judiciary to grant him unprecedented powers; he has gone after media organizations — not just the Paramounts, the CBSs, and the cancellation of Stephen Colbert, but look at what happened with Jimmy Kimmel not that long ago.
Nonprofit and advocacy organizations are his target, and universities are as well. So universities are part of a more comprehensive attack on our democratic institutions and our norms as a country that this Trump administration is focused on.
TT: Immigration is very important to MIT and, more broadly, to research. Recently, the White House has cracked down on immigration and announced fees for H1-B visas. What’s your vision for ideal immigration policy in the United States?
Padilla: Again, the best universities in America are good because of the diversity of thought and perspectives that faculty and students bring, which lead to rigorous debate and critical thinking as we solve problems. And I think it’s important to maintain that our immigration system as a whole in the United States is in desperate need of modernization. But as we update our politics, our programs, and our systems, we should keep in mind the benefits of diversity and inclusiveness in our economy, in our education system, and beyond.
TT: We want to end on a hopeful note, so what’s your hope for higher education policy going forwards?
Padilla: My hope for higher education policy is that colleges and universities stick to their values and their commitment to training the leaders of tomorrow. And I know that I speak for a lot of my colleagues when I say that we should be investing more in our universities, in research, and in students — not less.
Sabine Chu ’26 contributed to reporting for this article.