Gas prices, farm futures, and the cost of war — these are the kitchen-table concerns driving one of Iowa’s most closely watched congressional races this fall. In Iowa’s 4th Congressional District, Republican Chris McGowan and Democrat Dave Dawson squared off in a second debate, and while they agreed on more than you might expect, the differences between them reveal two very different visions for how Washington should handle the pressures hitting American families right now.
The October 14 2026 election matchup, hosted by Iowa Press at Iowa PBS in Johnston, covered foreign policy, agriculture, technology, and Social Security — each topic touching on costs that everyday Iowans feel in their wallets. The district, which covers the western half of the state and areas north of Des Moines, was left open after U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra departed the seat.
The War in Iran — and What It’s Costing Families
One of the clearest points of agreement: both candidates want the U.S. conflict in Iran to end. But the reasons they gave speak directly to what’s happening at the gas station and on the national credit card.
Dawson, an assistant Woodbury County attorney and former state lawmaker, tied the war directly to rising fuel costs and federal spending. The ongoing conflict, he argued, has destabilized energy markets and is adding to a national debt that every American family will eventually feel. He didn’t mince words about congressional responsibility.
“Right now we have a president engaged in an unconstitutional, illegal war that Congress hasn’t authorized, and no one in Congress has been willing to stand up and say this is wrong, and we’re putting too many American lives at risk. We’ve already lost 18 Americans, including those from Iowa.”
— Dave Dawson
McGowan, president of the Siouxland Chamber of Commerce, said he believes the U.S. has been in Iran “too long” and that the sooner the conflict ends and Americans come home, the better. If elected, he said his first move would be to access classified Pentagon information to assess whether the threat from Iran is truly imminent, so he could be, in his words,
“well informed when it comes time to make those important decisions about our national security and foreign policy.”
He said clear objectives need to be set — keeping Iran from nuclear weapons and maintaining access through the Strait of Hormuz — before the U.S. can responsibly exit.
Russian Diesel and Pain at the Pump
Building on discussions from their first debate on October 1, both candidates again rejected the Trump administration’s decision to allow imports of Russian diesel as a fix for high fuel costs.
“We all recognize there’s an awful lot of pain at the pump, but I have not spoken with any voters who believe that one of the solutions ought to be working with a dictator from Russia who’s engaged in a war that he initiated with Ukraine, one of our allies,”
McGowan said.
Dawson went further, arguing the move was illegal under a 2022 law requiring Congress to be consulted before lifting sanctions. He also called the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration unconstitutional, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision to back his claim.
McGowan disagrees on tariffs. He argued that global trade has been free but not fair to the United States for “far too long,” and that tariffs are working to level the playing field for American workers and manufacturers. One concrete solution both candidates support: allowing year-round sales of E-15 ethanol, which could help lower fuel costs for drivers across the Midwest.
Farmland, Data Centers, and Who Decides
Iowa’s agricultural economy was front and center as both candidates expressed support for a new farm bill and policies to help young farmers access land. But they parted ways on one key question: should private equity firms be allowed to buy up Iowa farmland?
McGowan said he wouldn’t support restrictions on those purchases, questioning whether it’s the government’s role to stand between a farmer and the highest bidder. Dawson said he’d back a ban on private equity ownership of farmland, as well as a ban on
“out-of-state foreign ownership of our farmland in Iowa.”
On data centers — a growing issue for rural communities worried about power consumption, noise, and rising utility bills — both candidates said local governments should have the final say. Woodbury County, which sits within the 4th District, has already placed a 12-month moratorium on data center applications while officials weigh the impacts.
McGowan said data centers should be required to pay for all infrastructure they need and mitigate the light and noise they produce before a community approves them. Dawson agreed with the county’s approach, but said the federal government has a role in making sure these businesses don’t harm the environment or drive up utility bills for local families.
“At the federal level, we really do need to make sure that all businesses that are conducting business throughout the United States are complying with environmental standards, so that our air quality and our water quality are not negatively impacted by these businesses. And I do support making sure that utility rates are not going to go up for local consumers,”
Dawson said.
Social Security: Who Pays and Who Waits
With Social Security facing a long-term funding shortfall, both candidates said they want to protect benefits — but they have very different ideas about how to do it.
McGowan said the program should be protected for those already enrolled, but that changes for future generations — including potentially raising the retirement age — deserve serious consideration. Dawson drew a personal connection to the issue, noting he’s paid into Social Security since his first job at age 16. His fix: lift the income cap so that millionaires and billionaires pay more into the system. He said he firmly opposes raising the retirement age or cutting benefits for anyone.
Both candidates also said they’d bring the same respectful tone they’ve shown each other throughout this race to Washington, if elected. As McGowan put it:
“I think that we both share a sense that our campaign is rooted in civil discourse, that we’re focused on policy and not personalities, and I hope that our families, both of our families, can look at the race … that we’ve run and take pride in the way that we have conducted ourselves.”
Comments are closed.