Congressman Suhas Subramanyam on Public Service, Law, Bipartisanship, and Building a Purpose-Driven Career

Congressman Suhas Subramanyam has represented Virginia’s 10th District since January of 2025 and previously served in the Virginia House of Delegates, where he became the first Indian American elected to the General Assembly. A former Obama Administration advisor and attorney with a background in technology and governance, he now serves in the U.S. House working on issues ranging from federal workforce reform to emerging tech. In this conversation, Congressman Subramanyam reflects on the experiences that drew him into public service—from rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina to working on Capitol Hill as a young staffer—and the lessons he carried into state and federal office. He speaks candidly about navigating a divided Congress, building bipartisan coalitions, and why government modernization—not mass firings—is essential to strengthening the federal workforce. He also offers practical advice for students seeking pathways into public service.

​This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

​Formative Experiences and the Path to Public Service
Ben Wolf: Congressman Subramanyam, it’s great to speak with you. The Pathway Blog is a student-led platform that aims to give students like myself a better understanding into career paths in politics, foreign affairs, public policy, and other similar fields. Let’s get right into it.
My first question for you is: looking back on your personal journey and public-service trajectory, which experiences or formative moments do you consider most important—the ones that ultimately shaped your decision to seek elected office?
Suhas Subramanyam: I always look back to when I was at Tulane and Hurricane Katrina hit the city. I really felt like it was an opportunity to help rebuild and serve the community. I found immense purpose and joy in doing that, and it’s what launched my interest in getting involved in public service.
I don’t think my plan at the time was ever to run for office. It was mostly to try to make things better in the community. That was certainly a formative experience.
I also had the opportunity to work for a member of Congress and see firsthand the impact you can have on the country and the world. That was pretty formative for me as well. Working on Capitol Hill after college—even though it was for less than two years—gave me a really great perspective on how impactful public service can be. That stuck with me as a state legislator and now in Congress.

Policy Priorities Shaped by Early Experiences
BW: And how do some of those early experiences influence the kinds of policies and priorities that you bring to Congress today?
SS: Clearly one of the reasons I got more political was because I care deeply about the environment. I care a lot about making sure everyone can pursue and reach the American dream—having a strong education system, a strong support system, and giving people the tools to unlock their potential. Those priorities haven’t really changed over the years.
I’ve definitely picked up others based on my experiences. For instance, I’ve worked a lot in tech—especially in emerging tech and entrepreneurship. I’ve seen both the challenges and the potential of starting a business. Those experiences have guided my priorities.
I usually try to find things that aren’t really happening on Capitol Hill, or that are underserved there, and build on those. Right now, technology expertise is one of those areas. That’s helped guide what I’m prioritizing.

Law School, Wrongful Convictions, and Lessons on Justice
BW: Before entering elected office, you also pursued a law degree, including contributing to overturning Jacques Rivera’s wrongful conviction. What lessons from that period continue to influence how you think about justice, accountability, and your own role as a legislator?
SS: Wow, what a blast from the past. Back when I worked on that case, Jacques Rivera had been wrongfully accused of murder, and I had the opportunity to work with the legal team that helped get him out.
What I took away from that experience is that the justice system has a lot of problems in America. Pretending that it doesn’t is not just naïve—it’s dangerous, because you end up putting innocent people in jail. The system works best for people who have a lot of money, and beyond that, it isn’t always fair.
Getting a law degree helped shape my career and inform me as a state legislator, and now in Congress. When I run into questions about whether a statute is legal or constitutional, it’s nice to be able to do my own statutory interpretation and have my own informed perspective, instead of having to rely on others.

To Go or Not to Go: The Law School Question
BW: Staying on that note of law school: as someone considering a future in both law and politics, I often think about the trade-offs of attending law school—especially today, when it’s more competitive, more expensive, and less linear than it once was. What went into your decision to pursue a law degree? And do you feel it was essential for your development as a policymaker?
SS: I always tell people: go to law school if you want to be a lawyer—or if you happen to have three years and a lot of money to spend. Most people don’t have the latter, so I usually just ask people straight up whether they want to be a lawyer.
If they’re not sure, I tell them to hold off on law school until they are. Law school is a prerequisite for becoming a lawyer in almost every state, and it gives you the foundation to do that. But it’s not really required if you want to be in public policy, or if you want a degree in something other than law.
It doesn’t hurt to have that foundation—it’s just a very expensive and time-consuming way of learning a lot. A better way to learn a lot without becoming a lawyer is to read books on the area of law you’re interested in and some foundational texts. That can be done without a law degree.

Political Communication in a Hyper-Public Age
BW: We’ll circle back to the reading recommendations in a bit. But I first want to ask you, in an era where political interactions are highly public and the media ecosystem leaves little room for private dialogue, how does that affect the way you communicate with your colleagues in Congress? Do you feel pressured to filter yourself? And how frequent are candid, off-camera conversations among members?
SS: I try to be candid. I never thought I would be here [in Congress], but now that I am, I’ve always disliked politicians giving canned responses that don’t sound genuine.
Even if I make mistakes at times or change my mind, I’d rather be candid and make a mistake than be phony and perfectly curated. That’s just my personality and what I value.
That said, there are definitely times when you have to be careful. Words matter, and you don’t want people to take your words out of context—but that’s always been the case. I generally assume that someone is listening at all times anyway.
I also try not to be paranoid about it. I try to be authentic.

Bipartisanship, Coalitions, and Governing in a Divided Congress
BW: As a newly elected member entering a closely divided Congress, how do you approach building genuine working relationships across ideological lines? Are there particular committees, caucuses, or issue coalitions where you see the greatest potential for bipartisan progress?
SS: I think, like in all walks of life, building coalitions is about relationships and people. If there’s someone who genuinely wants to work with me—even if they’re a Republican—I’m never going to say no.
To me, this job isn’t about my ego or anything other than doing the best we can for our country. I always welcome collaboration. If the other side genuinely wants to collaborate, I’m happy to do so. I usually try to build coalitions by building relationships with people first, even on a personal level, and then trying to find common ground.
I also try not to take things personally, even when it’s very hard. If someone passes a policy that’s really bad for my community, it can be difficult to then turn around and work with them on another issue. But I think that’s part of the job—to not have permanent friends or permanent enemies, and to find your allies issue by issue.

State vs. Federal Government: What Changes?
BW: I really appreciate your time, Congressman. We’re getting to our last few questions here. Having served at both the state and federal levels, what do you see as the most meaningful differences between the two? What should aspiring public servants understand about how policymaking and constituent expectations change across those environments?
SS: The basic difference between the state and federal levels, from what I’ve seen so far, is the amount of public attention that’s on Congress compared to the state level.
At the state level, we didn’t deal with budgets this large or this level of scrutiny. One of the reasons I ran at the state level was because I felt it didn’t get enough attention and that I could really make an impact there—which I feel I did.
In Congress, every vote and everything you do is scrutinized—and it can also be twisted. On any given vote, you never know if someone is going to find one line in a bill, take it out of context, and use it. Sometimes the bills we work on have flaws, but they’re the best we can do or they represent a compromise.
For someone who aspires to do everything as well as possible, it can be frustrating to compromise. But it’s part of the job, as long as you’re not compromising your values. In Congress you’re dealing with people from all over the country, not just your state, and that requires more deliberation and more compromise at times. That’s different.

Facing the Big Tests Ahead
​BW: Looking ahead, what do you anticipate will be the biggest test for you in Congress? And how are you preparing, both politically and personally, to navigate it?
SS: I think I’ve already seen some of it, which is the attack on the federal workforce and the impact it would have on Virginia and our Commonwealth. I talked a lot about this during the campaign last year—that gutting the federal workforce would be a self-imposed recession. I said we’d see efforts to gut the federal workforce and potentially a shutdown.
Now we’ve seen both. That’s been helpful in showing people that federal workers are really essential to running this country. When you fire them en masse, it has real consequences for the country.
We’re already seeing a lot of federal workers and contractors having to be rehired after being let go, and I think we’re going to see more of that.
One thing I hope to do in the future is a full government modernization program. My experience in government has shown me that the problem isn’t the federal workers—it’s all of the regulatory hoops they have to jump through and all of the burdens on their shoulders. That makes their jobs much harder.
When Congress passes well-intended but not always effective laws, it can lead to delays in providing services to the American people. There have also been cuts at agencies that were more ideological than practical—cutting overhead in ways that actually hurt service delivery.
When you make cuts to places like Social Security offices, you end up with really long delays. To me, we’re cutting in the wrong places. We should be cutting unnecessary regulation rather than cutting the people who keep things running smoothly and actually prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

Government Modernization: A Long-Overdue Project
BW: A government modernization project, could you tell me more about that? What do you see as the timetable for it?
SS: It should have started yesterday. It should have started many years ago.
But I’ve already pushed several bills forward—some of which have passed—on government modernization. I’ve got five I’m voting on today, and there will be more in the next couple of months that I’m introducing.
It’s bipartisan, and it’s the kind of work that will not only save us money as a country but save us a lot of time as far as providing services. And it doesn’t require firing people. I think we can do government modernization a lot better than we have—certainly much better than what’s been done so far.

Advice for Young People Entering Public Service
BW: That sounds really promising. We’re wishing you the best of luck in that passing.
Just the last two questions here, Congressman. First: for college students and young people interested in public service, advocacy, or politics, what guidance would you offer on navigating early-career decisions, developing expertise, and finding a sense of purpose in public-facing work?
SS: If you want to get involved in public policy or community engagement, just get involved! Find organizations or elected officials who are doing work that interests you and ask if they have internships or opportunities where you can help.
Sometimes it starts with things that are not glamorous—knocking doors, writing postcards—but even that work is valuable. It lets you see how people receive public policy.
I always tell people: find what’s interesting to you and engage in it right now. And be willing to work for free at first if that’s what it takes to get your foot in the door. That’s what I did.

Reading Recs
BW: And finally, you mentioned earlier that even if you don’t get a law degree, you can still learn a lot by reading law books. On that note of reading: for those who hope to follow a path similar to yours, what books, essays, or pieces of writing have most influenced you? What do you recommend to students preparing for work in public service?
SS: That’s a really good question. I really like this book called Getting to Maybe. I wish I’d read it before law school.
It gives you a great baseline foundation for what being a lawyer—and being good at law school—is all about. Essentially, it talks about how you should learn to use the facts from both sides in any argument. As a lawyer, you might sometimes represent a side that has a really tough case, and your gut might say they’re going to lose.
But then you dive into the facts from their perspective and realize the facts can actually be on your side if you dig deep enough and align them with the right precedent. I think a lot about Getting to Maybe when I think about my time as a lawyer and in law school.

BW: Congressman, this has been incredibly insightful. I can’t thank you enough for taking this time with me—I really appreciate it.
SS: Yeah, no problem at all—and Roll Wave! I hope they win on Friday.
BW: Yep, fingers crossed!