2026 Election Questionnaire: Jeff Walter, U.S. House of Representatives, 11th District

Name: Jeff Walter

What office are you seeking: US House of Representatives Illinois 11th District

What is your political party?

What is your current age? 65

Occupation and employer: Retired IT Consultant

What offices, if any, have you previously held? Trustee, Village of Elburn

Mayor (Village President), Village of Elburn

Precinct Committee Person, Blackberry Township

City: Elburn

Campaign website: jeffwalterforcongress.com

Education: Bachelor of Science - Finance

Masters of Science - Manufacturing Management

Masters of Business Administration (MBA)

Community involvement: Elburn Lions Club - various volunteer activities including cooking, serving, kitchen chair, bar manger

American Legion - Member and volunteer for post activities including 300 raffle, 0.1 beer run

Knights of Columbus Council 17360 - 4th Degree member, chair of Elburn Days Corn Sales, Chair of Golf Outing, volunteer at various events

Marital status/Immediate family: Married, 2 Children

What are your top three legislative priorities for your first year in the U.S. House?

1. Cost-of-Living Relief & Affordability for Working Families

Why it matters: Affordability is the top concern voters feel every day.

First-Year Focus -

- Advance middle-class tax relief and tax-code simplification to let families keep more of what they earn.

- Fight regulations and unfunded mandates that drive up local taxes, utility bills, and housing costs.

- Support policies that lower energy, transportation, and healthcare costs without sacrificing reliability or access

As a mayor, I’ve seen firsthand how federal decisions directly raise local costs and force tax hikes.

2. Accountability, Oversight & Functional Government

Why it matters: Voters want a government that works—and spends responsibly.

First-Year Focus

- Aggressive oversight to root out fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs.

- Push for regular order in budgeting and appropriations to end crisis-driven governing.

- Demand accountability from federal agencies that impose costly rules without funding or flexibility.

I bring executive leadership, budget responsibility, and real-world accountability—not theoretical oversight.

3. Border Security, Immigration Enforcement & National Security

Why it matters: Security and the rule of law are foundational to a stable economy and safe communities.

First-Year Focus

- Support strong border enforcement and interior enforcement, including ICE, paired with humane and lawful practices.

- Address cartel activity, fentanyl trafficking, and national security vulnerabilities tied to border failures.

- Begin serious, bipartisan discussions on lawful, earned pathways to citizenship—only alongside secure borders and enforcement.

I approach the issue pragmatically—focused on enforcement first, accountability always, and solutions that last.

What specific local issues in this district will guide your work in Congress?

The local issues that will guide my work in Congress are affordability, infrastructure, and the growing impact of federal decisions on local communities. Families in this district are feeling the strain of rising property taxes, utility bills, housing costs, and transportation challenges, many of which are driven by unfunded federal mandates and regulatory costs passed down to local governments. As a mayor, I see firsthand how Washington policies affect water systems, roads, public safety, and budgets, and that experience will shape my focus on pushing back against unfunded mandates, securing infrastructure funding with flexibility, and lowering the cost of living. My priority will be ensuring federal policy supports—not burdens—the communities that make up this district.

What federal funding priorities would you advocate for this district, including infrastructure needs like roads, bridges, broadband, and transit?

I would advocate for federal funding priorities that deliver measurable benefits to this district, particularly in core infrastructure like roads and bridges. Reliable transportation networks are essential for commuters, local businesses, and emergency services. Expanded high-speed broadband is also needed in rural areas and is critical for education, healthcare, and economic growth. As a mayor, I understand the importance of flexible funding that allows local leaders to address their most urgent needs rather than one-size-fits-all mandates. My focus would be on securing infrastructure dollars that move projects forward, reduce long-term costs, and strengthen the district’s economic competitiveness.

How will you prioritize the concerns of your district versus the priorities of your party?

My first responsibility is to the people of this district, and their concerns will always come before party agendas. I believe effective representation starts with listening to local leaders, families, and businesses and then applying common-sense solutions—even when that means pushing back on my own party. As a mayor, I’ve built my leadership style around working across differences to deliver results, and I would bring that same approach to Congress. Party affiliation should inform values, not override the practical needs of the communities I represent.

Has Congress given up its Article I powers during the Trump administration? How would you restore congressional authority?

Congress has, at times, allowed its Article I constitutional powers to erode—not just during the Trump administration, but over many administrations from both parties. In areas such as trade, emergency powers, spending, and regulation, Congress has increasingly delegated authority to the executive branch rather than exercising its own responsibilities through legislation, oversight, and regular order. This trend became more visible as presidents of both parties relied on executive actions when Congress failed to act decisively. The real issue is not one president, but Congress’s willingness to reclaim its role by legislating clearly, conducting rigorous oversight, and reasserting its constitutional authority rather than governing by default through the executive branch.

Do you believe any conduct of the current administration needs to be investigated?

I believe Congress has a responsibility to conduct regular, good-faith oversight of any administration, regardless of party, but investigations should be fact-driven, specific, and tied to credible evidence, not politics or headlines. Where there are clear questions about the use of taxpayer dollars, compliance with existing law, enforcement failures, or agency actions that exceed statutory authority, Congress should investigate thoroughly and transparently. At the same time, oversight should not become a substitute for legislating or a tool for partisan theater—its purpose is accountability, corrective action, and restoring public trust. In short, investigations are appropriate when there are concrete facts and clear legal standards at issue, and they should always be conducted responsibly and with respect for due process.

Has the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) gone too far in its recommendations?

How will you work across the aisle to pass legislation?

I believe effective legislation requires working across the aisle, because lasting solutions are built on consensus, not slogans. As Mayor, I do this every day—collaborating with officials and residents of different political views to pass ordinances, balance budgets, and solve practical problems for the whole community. That experience has taught me how to listen, find common ground, and move legislation forward without compromising core principles. I would bring that same results-focused, collaborative approach to Congress to deliver meaningful outcomes for the district.

Do you support term limits for House members, and if so, what limits?

I support term limits for the U.S. House of Representatives and believe service should be limited to no more than three terms. The House was intended to be the people’s chamber, not a place for career politicians, and term limits help restore accountability, fresh perspectives, and a stronger connection to the district. That is why I signed the term-limit pledge—to make clear that public service is about serving for a time, doing the work, and then stepping aside so new leaders can bring energy and ideas to Washington.

Do you believe the President should have the constitutional authority to order military strikes and detain a foreign head of state without prior Congressional authorization? Why or why not, and where should Congress draw the line between executive action and its own constitutional war powers?

I believe the President must retain the authority to order limited military strikes and detain a foreign head of state without prior congressional authorization when immediate action is necessary to protect U.S. lives, national security, or vital interests. The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief precisely so the nation can respond decisively to fast-moving threats, where delay could invite greater harm. That authority, however, is not unlimited: Congress should draw a clear line by requiring authorization for sustained military operations, regime-change campaigns, or prolonged detentions, and by exercising rigorous oversight, funding control, and transparency requirements. In short, the President must be able to act swiftly in crises, while Congress retains its constitutional role over war, duration, and accountability.

What is your position on U.S. intervention, specifically Ukraine, Israel and Venezuela?

My position on U.S. intervention is grounded in clear national interests, defined objectives, and accountability—not open-ended commitments.

Ukraine: I support continued U.S. assistance to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty against Russian aggression, but that support must be clearly defined, accountable, and paired with strong oversight. Aid should be tied to measurable objectives, burden-sharing with allies, and a strategy that prevents escalation while working toward a durable resolution.
Israel: Israel is a key ally with an unquestionable right to defend itself against terrorism and external threats. I support U.S. assistance to Israel’s defense and security, along with diplomatic efforts to prevent wider regional conflict and protect civilian lives, while maintaining Israel’s ability to ensure its own security.
Venezuela: The Maduro regime is a destabilizing force tied to corruption, repression, and transnational crime. I support strong diplomatic, economic, and law-enforcement pressure to restore democratic governance, and I believe decisive U.S. action—including military options—can be justified if necessary to protect regional stability and U.S. national security interests.

Across all cases, my standard is consistent: U.S. involvement should be purposeful, time-bound, and aligned with American security interests, with Congress exercising oversight and the President retaining the ability to act decisively when immediate threats arise.

What is your stance on border security and immigration reform?

My stance on border security and immigration reform is grounded in enforcement first, compassion always, and accountability throughout the system. I support strong border security and the continued mission of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, because a nation without secure borders cannot enforce the rule of law or protect public safety. At the same time, I believe America benefits from legal immigration that is orderly, merit-based, and humane, and I am open to discussing earned pathways to citizenship for otherwise law-abiding individuals—but only alongside real border control, interior enforcement, and reforms that prevent future illegal entry. In short, enforcement and reform must move together: secure the border, enforce the law, and then fix a broken system in a way that is fair, realistic, and consistent with American values.

Do you support changes to Social Security or Medicare to ensure long-term solvency?

Yes, I support responsible, commonsense changes to Social Security and Medicare to ensure long-term solvency, but those reforms must protect current seniors and anyone close to retirement. Doing nothing guarantees automatic benefit cuts in the future, which is unacceptable. I am open to gradual, forward-looking reforms for younger workers—such as modest eligibility adjustments tied to life expectancy, targeted means testing for very high earners, and policies that reduce healthcare cost growth—paired with stronger oversight to reduce fraud and waste. The goal is to keep these programs strong and reliable for those who depend on them today and for future generations who are paying into the system now.

What should Congress do to address healthcare affordability?

Congress should address healthcare affordability by focusing not only on treatment costs, but on helping Americans live healthier lives in the first place. That includes supporting initiatives that promote nutrition, physical activity, and preventive care, while also taking a hard look at harmful chemicals and additives in the food chain that contribute to chronic disease and long-term healthcare costs. I support commonsense MAHA-style initiatives that improve transparency in food labeling, strengthen safety standards based on sound science, and encourage healthier choices without heavy-handed mandates. By reducing chronic illness and improving overall health, we can lower healthcare costs, improve quality of life, and ease the long-term burden on families and taxpayers alike.

Is the CDC a trustworthy, qualified source of information under RFK Jr.? How should public health policy be managed?

The CDC should be a trustworthy, science-based public health institution regardless of who leads it, and trust depends on transparency, data integrity, and independence from political influence. Under Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the standard should be the same as under any administration: recommendations grounded in reproducible science, open data, and clear communication of uncertainty and tradeoffs. Public health policy should be managed by setting national guardrails, sharing best available evidence, and empowering states, local governments, physicians, and individuals to make informed decisions—rather than relying on one-size-fits-all mandates. Rebuilding trust requires rigorous oversight, disclosure of conflicts of interest, timely correction of errors, and a focus on outcomes that improve health while respecting personal liberty.

How should Congress regulate artificial intelligence, if at all?

Congress should regulate artificial intelligence in a targeted, limited waythat protects people without slowing innovation or driving this technology overseas. The focus should be on outcomes and accountability, not micromanaging the technology itself—clear rules for privacy protection, transparency when AI is used in high-impact decisions, and liability when AI is used to cause harm. Congress should also require disclosure of AI-generated content to combat misinformation, while protecting free speech and avoiding government control of “truth.” The goal is to keep America leading in AI by setting clear guardrails, protecting civil liberties, and ensuring humans—not algorithms—remain responsible.

What issues do you feel like you differ from President Trump on?

While I share many core conservative principles with Donald Trump, I differ with him on several issues of governance and long-term policy approach. I place a stronger emphasis on restoring regular order in Congress, fiscal discipline, and durable legislative solutions rather than relying primarily on executive action. I am also more cautious about broad, across-the-board tariffs, favoring targeted trade enforcement that protects U.S. workers without raising costs for families and small businesses. In addition, I support establishing a national standard for high school graduates focused on core, job-ready skills—literacy, math, critical thinking, digital skills, and financial literacy—to ensure we are producing productive citizens prepared for today’s workforce, while still leaving curriculum control with states and local communities.

If Republicans hold the House in 2026, what issues should oversight committees investigate first?

If Republicans hold the House in 2026, oversight should be focused, fact-driven, and tied to measurable outcomes, not political theater. Priority should go to areas where accountability failures most directly affect taxpayers, public safety, and trust in government:

Border security and enforcement failures — Investigate operational breakdowns, resource allocation, and policy decisions at Department of Homeland Security that have contributed to illegal crossings, fentanyl trafficking, and strain on local communities.
Fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs — Prioritize improper payments across major safety-net and pandemic-era programs, with clear follow-through, recovery of funds, and referrals for prosecution where warranted.
Public health decision-making and transparency — Review data integrity, conflicts of interest, and policy processes at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to rebuild public trust and ensure science-based guidance.
Regulatory overreach and unfunded mandates — Examine the cost impacts of rules issued by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, especially where mandates drive up local taxes or utility rates without federal funding.
Weaponization and politicization of federal agencies — Assess whether enforcement and regulatory powers have been applied unevenly or outside statutory authority, with reforms to restore neutrality and due process.
Federal spending discipline and budgeting failures — Investigate reliance on continuing resolutions, emergency spending, and lack of regular order, and hold agencies accountable for failing audits.

The goal should be clear: restore accountability, protect taxpayers, correct failures, and improve outcomes—not conduct investigations for their own sake, but to make government work better for the American people.

What issues, if any, do you agree with Democrats on?

I agree with Democrats on a limited but important set of issues where there is practical overlap and the opportunity for results, even if we often differ on approach or scale. Those areas include infrastructure investment—particularly roads, bridges, broadband, and water systems—where federal dollars, spent responsibly and with local flexibility, can strengthen communities and the economy. I also agree on the need to reduce healthcare costs through prevention, including promoting healthier lifestyles and addressing factors that contribute to chronic disease, even if we differ on mandates versus incentives. In addition, there is common ground on government accountability, rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse, and ensuring federal programs actually deliver results for taxpayers. Where agreement exists, I believe Congress should build on it to get things done, while being clear and honest about where philosophical differences remain.

Should private equity and hedge funds be allowed to purchase so many homes?

I am concerned about the growing role of large private equity firms and hedge funds in purchasing single-family homes, particularly when it reduces housing availability and drives up prices for working families and first-time buyers. Housing should primarily serve as a place to live and raise a family, not just a financial instrument. I would support targeted, market-based policies that increase transparency, discourage speculative bulk purchasing that distorts local markets, and prioritize homeownership opportunities for individuals and families—while avoiding heavy-handed controls that could reduce overall housing supply. The goal should be a fair housing market that rewards work and savings, not one tilted against local residents by concentrated financial power.

Do you support or oppose the expansion of work requirements for SNAP recipients? Why?

I support expanding reasonable work requirements for SNAP recipients because the program should be a temporary support that encourages self-sufficiency whenever possible. Work requirements, paired with job training, education, and exemptions for seniors, people with disabilities, caregivers, and those genuinely unable to work, help preserve the program for those who truly need it while strengthening the workforce. Done correctly, these requirements promote dignity, reduce long-term dependency, and protect taxpayer dollars—without cutting off help to vulnerable populations. The key is balance: firm expectations, real opportunities to work or train, and humane safeguards.

Who are your top donors? How often do you speak with them?

My top donors can be found on my quarterly reports. I, or my fundraising staff, speak to them at least monthly.

How would you reform U.S. trade policy so that farms don’t need repeated bailouts from tariff impacts?

U.S. trade policy should stop putting farmers in the position of being collateral damage in tariff fights and then “made whole” with repeated ad-hoc bailouts. I would push a shift to targeted, time-limited trade enforcement (clear objectives, measurable benchmarks, and automatic off-ramps), paired with front-end consultation with agriculture so retaliation risks are priced in before tariffs are imposed. Where assistance is needed, it should be predictable and rules-based—a standing, transparent trade-disruption backstop triggered only by verified export losses—rather than improvised payments that distort planning and land prices.

At the same time, we should modernize farm safety-net programs so they don’t unintentionally reward poor practices. That means reforming crop insurance and subsidy design to reduce moral hazard: tighten “prevented planting” and repetitive-loss incentives where they encourage planting on marginal ground, strengthen conservation compliance, and tie premium subsidies more directly to proven risk-reducing practices like soil health measures, cover crops, erosion control, and nutrient management. Finally, expand market access so farms are less vulnerable to any single trade shock—more aggressive trade deals for ag exports, diversified export markets, and stronger domestic processing capacity—so the goal is fewer bailouts because farms are more resilient and trade policy is more disciplined.