My work lives at the place where political will meets operational reality — the gap where most good ideas die.

For the past decade, that has meant doing the unglamorous work of translating vision into structure: building the frameworks that make regulation legible to technologists, making the language of innovation legible to governments, and finding the institutional leverage points that let both sides actually move. At Google, I manage emerging tech policy. Before that, global business strategy. Before that, M&A advisory at PwC. The through-line is not the institutions — it's the gap.

This work is not abstract to me. My father spent years in American factories and airports absorbing what a country does to people it hasn't decided to protect yet. My mother built a medical practice in Chicago because the system she served wouldn't fully serve her. I grew up watching two people navigate institutions that were not designed with them in mind — and learning, from the inside, exactly where those institutions bend and where they break.

I care about the architecture underneath good policy — the decision structures, the coalition math, the operational sequence that turns a compelling idea into something a city can actually feel. Whether the room is full of regulators, operators, or organizers, my job is the same: find the real constraint, build the path around it, and give the people doing the work exactly what they need to finish. That orientation — toward systems, toward leverage, toward what actually moves — is what I bring to every room I'm in, and what I'm building toward next.