Loading this candidate’s profile from the FEC filings and campaign records.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Candidates › MT-02 race › 2025–2026
Michael Eisenhauer
I Independent nominee for U.S. House, MT-02
Has not served in Congress
- On the ballot
- On the general election ballotNov 3, 2026 · Montana US House 2
- Where to vote
- Find your polling place (opens in a new tab) · More ways to vote
- Top priorities
- (NEW TOPIC) DATA CENTERS IN MONTANA
- AFFORDABILITY AND THE ECONOMY
- >>HEALTHCARE FINANCE (PROTECT RURAL HEALTHCARE)
- Why is healthcare so expensive in our hospitals?
- >>HIGH COST OF HOUSING
- Money
- $354.2K raised, $330.9K spent, $23.3K cash on hand (through Oct 14, 2026). Where it comes from
- Who gives
- 12% of individual money from donors at $200 or less · 30% from Montana · largest committee giver INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS CAMPAIGN ASSISTANCE FUND, $5K
- Backed by
- Montana AFL-CIO · Independent Veterans of America · Big Sky 55+ and 16 more. As the campaign lists them
- Polling
- 9% in the latest poll (Rutgers-Eagleton). The polls
22 priorities from eisenhauerforcongress.com, in the order they are listed there. Every heading and the text under it is copied exactly, as one passage for each page it is from, and links to that place on the page; hover a source to see which passage it opens.
Data centers in Montana have become a hot-topic in this campaign – and for good reason. Although data centers already exist within our State, the development of increased computing need to support a growing artificial intelligence network has spurred controversy as pertaining to facility growth or expansion to new sites.
My approach to this topic mirrors my general and “independent” approach to controversial matters or problems facing our electorate. I hope that what you read here demonstrates a logical, and methodical, approach to this issue while taking into account points of consideration that are being promoted by both/all sides of the issue. As always, my eyes and ears are and will remain open to learning more about this issue, and other similar issues, throughout this campaign and later when in office.
There are five (5) contemporary pillars to my thinking as relates to data centers in Montana:
- 1. Closed-Loop Cooling. This means that we will not allow a simple one-way column of water to first be extracted from either ground- or surface-waters, run through the facility, and then drained back downstream. A closed-loop system can very nearly eliminate the need for a continuous water supply. There are advanced closed-loop systems that are even more efficient in terms of water use, or don’t use water-based cooling at all. Closed-loop cooling should be considered non-negotiable for all current/new systems in Montana.
- 2. Power Consumption and Generation. This means that any proposed data center must provide for its’ own power needs, whether by novel-purchase or by new power generation. But it’s not just that – they must account for, and provide for, at least 200-300% of their expected needs to account for programmed growth. It is only in this way, that the local and regional consumer can be protected from higher electricity rates – nobody wants to see that happen. These assurances must be durable, and long-standing into the future for at least 10 years (with a potential guarantee-bond requirement for grid-reliability?).
These very large and often-times multi-national corporations can then determine how they want to accomplish this, either by purchase from out-of-state sources (including the construction of new transmission lines, if needed), by renewable sources (solar, wind, geo-thermal), by new production (new power plants), or potentially by even newer sources of production (small modular nuclear reactors, for example).
- 3. Montana Labor Builds and Operates Montana Facilities. We do not need out-sourced construction teams coming in to displace available labor in Montana – or those who might then take shortcuts or are not familiar with Montana’s environmental laws and regulations. This is pretty straight-forward, and has been already largely agreed to by major corporations wanting to build these facilities in our State.
Wherever possible, employee training or registered apprenticeship programs should be taken advantage of (or developed) to hire local citizens as a skilled workforce to operate and maintain these facilities, long-term.
- 4. Safeguards and Rules of Engagement (ROE). This is where the ground-rules are set and agreed upon, before construction ever begins. Certain guardrails are needed – and expected – by both our local and regional communities and the building organization(s). Not every facility needs to be governed by the same set of guardrails; this is and should be a point of conjoined local and regional negotiations. This committee does not need 2 years to develop a work product – it might take 90-120 days, at most. The committee should be comprised of a reasonable number of representatives (of not more than 12 to 15 in total?) from the builder, operator, power-source operator, environmental protection agencies, local citizens, local elected leaders, the local workforce, and a conservation-minded community member. It does not need to be driven at the federal or state level, and should likely be limited in membership to only one state-wide politician or appointed official.
Some examples of negotiated ROE may include (but are certainly not limited to):
Community transparency. Communities must have a meaningful say in project approvals and community benefits packages.
No rate hikes. Data centers must pay for their own energy demand – costs cannot be passed onto ratepayers.
Energy reliability. Projects must include enforceable commitments from utilities to improve energy reliability, as funded entirely by data center revenues.
No clean-energy loopholes. Utilities cannot use data-center projects to weaken or sidestep other clean energy laws or regulations.
Jobs guarantee. Montana labor builds and operates, or face significant penalties.
Water protection and waste-matter safety. Firm and enforceable limits on water use and hazardous-material waste processing.
Community benefits agreements. Projects should include binding agreements that deliver real benefits to a local/regional community, including local infrastructure investments, improvements to the electrical grid, burying power lines, and/or upgrading water treatment facilities and piping. This list is not inclusive – each local/regional community may have their own preferred agreements based upon local need.
Enforceability. All agreements must be enforceable through actionable penalties that have teeth.
- 5. Local Control is Paramount. I do not believe in either a federal or statewide mandate in either direction, for or against, with respect to data centers. Some communities may not want them, whereas other communities may. Some may not be interested the tax-base and local employment opportunities (or community enhancements), whereas others may be interested. It is a matter of local and regional choice – if for no other reason than that they are the group most likely to be affected by any ultimate decision to proceed.
To be clear-eyed, I disagree with a permanent statewide ban on data centers, and I do not support a 2-year moratorium because it simply should not take 2 years to reach and then register these local and regional agreements.
That said, I am strongly in favor of local decision-making, and that may well take the form of a formal vote of the local/regional populace by direct tally or other means, should local officials determine that to be either wise or necessary. I agree with and fully support the rights and abilities for any local petitioning process to take place, insofar as it can be completed in a timely manner and not drawn out (for example: not longer than 3 or 4 months, with a popular vote to take place at the soonest opportunity).
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
The citizens of Montana, like most Americans, are tired of working harder for less while the cost of everything seems to keeps rising. The affordability crisis touches every household, and is contributing to a growing sense of anxiety and distress. The biggest factor is that prices of essentials or basic necessities are rising much faster than average earnings; this is particularly true for housing, child care, the cost of foods, healthcare and health insurance. Many Montana families are just one large medical bill away from major disaster or even bankruptcy, and are essentially living from paycheck to paycheck while trying to make ends meet.
The price of nearly everything is going up and much of it can be traced back to the economic turmoil of the Covid-19 pandemic; subsequent efforts by the Biden administration to goose the economy with overly aggressive spending resulted in the highest inflationary rates seen in decades.
Still, there is a widely growing consensus that President Trump’s administration has done too little to curb inflation or to promote growth in real wages. While tariffs can be used to regulate an ‘unequal-trade balance’ between nations in the short term, the tariffs created by President Trump and enabled by Congress have been excessive and are hurting our economy by increasing costs for consumers and businesses, slowing manufacturing, and creating uncertainty.
Tariffs will not make America rich again. Instead, tariffs are an indirect tax on Americans that will inevitably be passed along in the form of higher prices for imported goods and business inputs; this leads to higher inflation and pressures companies to cut jobs or delay growth. We’ve already seen the administration begin to reduce those tariffs in certain sectors in an effort to stem losses and falling popular support.
Many of these import tariffs have also now been deemed illegal by the US Supreme Court — but the refunds are not making it back to the public (who paid the tariffs by pass-through from importers), but instead are going back to the larger corporate entities who often may themselves be multi-national players.
It is undeniable that Congress and the current administration needs to do more. Unfortunately, the 119th Congress seems to be more interested in fighting against each other, rather than focusing on bipartisan solutions.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
One-fifth of our economy is now spent on healthcare, which is unsustainable. The average family of four now spends roughly $27,000 per year on health insurance – about the cost of a new vehicle each and every year. Most families don’t see the full bill because their employer or the government pays much of it. Or they may opt to risk everything and go without health insurance entirely – and then risk bankruptcy if large medical bills do come. Either way, the employee pays the ultimate price in terms of direct costs or reduced wages, because employers often can’t afford both higher insurance premiums as well as a living wage for their employees that keeps up with inflation.
Millions of Americans are now seeing their health insurance costs increasing disproportionately because of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), which canceled Medicaid support and eliminated subsidies previously available through healthcare exchanges and the Affordable Care Act. In 2025, the Montana Legislature passed HB245 to continue Medicaid expansion and revised some work requirements. But it is now estimated that upwards of 38,000 Montanans will lose Medicaid support as a result of the OBBB.
Approximately two-thirds of Montana Medicaid recipients reside in rural areas. Over 300 U.S. Critical Access (rural) Hospitals are in jeopardy of closing. There is no question that the OBBB directly threatens the ability for some of Montana’s 47 rural hospitals to remain open and financially viable (or maintain current service levels) as they are more financially dependent on Medicaid than their larger counterparts. The people of Montana’s 2nd Congressional District will be disproportionately harmed if any of their rural hospitals are forced to close their doors.
As a cardiologist, it’s easy for me to interpret that delays of even an hour in the care for emergencies such as a heart attack or stroke can mean the difference between life and death. It will hurt if the nearest medical facility is a 3 to 4 hour drive away.
The November, 2025, 43-day government shutdown was largely driven by differences in opinion about healthcare insurance subsidies available through healthcare exchanges. But at the end of the record-breaking shutdown, nothing was accomplished of any significance outside of an agreement to ‘talk about it sometime down the road.’ Neither party offered substantive solutions besides the obvious reductions in waste, fraud, and abuse (which is reasonable, but cannot be expected to make up the difference).
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
- Nearly every industry in the US has experienced substantial improvements in productivity over the last 30-50 years, with 1 major exception: healthcare.
- Over the past 30 years, non-clinical administrators continued to take over many aspects of healthcare management – presumably to manage costs – but the results are opposite and the overall cost of healthcare has grown exponentially to the point that it is a business frankly out of control.
- In 2023, the US spent an estimated $4.9 trillion on health care, including ~30% of that on non-clinical or administrative functions; administrative costs have increased dramatically despite major technological enhancements.
- A big piece of administrative costs comes from complex billing and insurance-related tasks.
- In the past, many hospital systems were owned by their own communities. Either through consolidation or by selling themselves off, many communities no longer control local decisions about the importance or delivery of healthcare.
- Simply stated, there is no place for Venture Capital in healthcare – in the short term, the VC source can be seen as a savior for a threatened facility – but the VC almost always siphons large chunks of money rapidly out of the facility to provide a profit for their investors.
- An important part of the increased cost of US healthcare is a gross lack of transparency about actual charges submitted by many healthcare entities, high costs of prescription medicines, and rapidly advancing clinical technologies. In other words, consumers cannot do comparison shopping.
- Even though CMS required hospital pricing transparency starting in 2021, a 2024 report found that nearly 80% of US hospitals fail to fully comply with the federal rule.
Any successful effort must first protect a person’s ability to see the doctor of their choice, and must retain coverage for preexisting conditions. I do not believe that a single-payer system will be workable, and if government-operated will inevitably raise taxes significantly. Above all else, I will fight hard to defend and protect rural healthcare in Montana.
The broken healthcare financial system cannot be fixed easily, or by one Congressman. But an Independent Representative can think out of the box in ways that differ from those members who are constrained by party dogma. And as a physician, I also have an enhanced perspective from within the system, so to speak.
Any proposed or substantive change to healthcare finance will require professional think tanks and economists to evaluate at length (and the Congressional Budget Office), but I am looking forward to jumping into this mess with full force and with several new ideas and renewed energy.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
Millions of Americans are losing out on the chance to reap the benefits of homeownership because of a supply shortage. Housing prices in Montana are significantly higher, with a typical home value being about 22% higher and the median listing price 43% higher than the national average. This trend is driven by rapid price growth that was clearly exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, and which has made Montana one of the least affordable states for housing. According to the Montana Department of Revenue, median home prices in our state have increased by over 66% in just the last four years, increasing from $228,000 to $378,000.
In 2024, a National Association of Realtors analysis that compared the average home price to a state’s average income showed that Montana had become the least affordable market in the country in that time, surpassing even states like California and Idaho.
The shortage is most acute for affordable homes, where low- and moderate-income renters and first-time homebuyers are losing faith that they will be able to experience this part of the American dream. According to November 2025 data from the National Association of Realtors, the average age of a first-time homebuyer is now at a record high above 40 years. In comparison, the median age was 38 in 2024 and has risen significantly from 33 in 2020, and 28 in 1991. Looking at it in another way, in just the last 15 years, the average overall U.S. homebuyer has increased from 39 to 59 years old.
The picture is not great for renters either. The Montana Budget and Policy Center also reports that nearly a quarter of Montana renters spend more than half of their monthly income on rent.
Economics 101 teaches that when prices of an essential item do rise, that producers will then supply more of that item to meet demand. There is a countering view, however, that developers and landlords have no financial incentive to either lower rents, or build affordable housing. It’s simple – a builder will make more money and faster constructing a $0.5-1.0 Million home, as opposed to low-cost single-family or even multi-family housing. Landlords increasingly seem interested in raising rents, over maintaining full occupancy of multiple-unit complexes (this has led to DoJ investigations and lawsuits by many states’ Attorneys General). This is exaggerated further when investors or corporate entities buy up large volumes of housing, and then charge increasing rents or prices that are beyond the reach of the median household income.
There is now a growing consensus that the market, when describing the high-costs of essential housing, is not capable of fixing itself. It becomes rapidly clear that external forces must be applied to remedy the “broken housing market”. At a minimum, anti-trust enforcement and a ban on collective rent-setting amongst large groups of corporate landlords is required.
Many homebuyers in the market for an affordable home can’t just buy a house and repair it (or update/remodel) because of the way mortgage financing works. Most lenders will only lend against the property’s current value, which does not allow enough for needed repairs. As a result, the potential homebuyer may lose the chance to buy the home to investors or corporations that can afford to buy homes in bulk (often sight unseen), finance the repairs internally, and then rent out the property – which prohibits the home from returning to the market as an affordable home for purchase. A first-time homebuyer can only rarely win a bidding war against a large corporation.
Many older homeowners may want to downsize or relocate to be closer to family – or to tap into established home equity to help with other expenses – but cannot afford to because of persisting interest rates that remain near a decade-long high. In addition, a growing number of older homeowners are subject to capital gains taxes on home sales, so many baby boomers are now saying that they’re holding onto their homes ‘forever’ so their kids can then inherit them tax-free. The end result is that many older adults are choosing to stay ‘locked-in’ in their homes, instead of downsizing. Both of these trends magnify the reduction of available homes on the market.
These issues are further compounded by significant tariffs lodged against building products; the current combined U.S. tariff on Canadian softwood lumber is approximately 45% for most companies, but it can vary somewhat by producer.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
- Enact new laws that will allow all home-mortgages to be transferable with minimal penalty of no more than 0.5% rate increase, thereby freeing up home equity
- Zoning changes that remove barriers to the construction of duplexes, triplexes or multi-family housing in residential areas
- Government incentives to municipalities to open larger tracts of land for development
- Enforce antitrust laws against real estate entities that are “price-fixing” rents
- Significant down-payment assistance to 1st-time homebuyers
- Tax incentives for home builders to encourage multi-family dwelling construction
- Property tax relief to qualified homeowners, and to 1st-time homebuyers for the first 3 years
- Targeted reductions in capital gains taxes for older homeowners, thereby avoiding a significant tax penalty
- Improve financing terms (i.e.: interest rate adjustments or subsidies) for qualified purchase/rehab/repair loans
- Prioritize offers from buyers at foreclosure auctions who plan to live in the home themselves
- Provide incentives for modular or manufactured home construction
- Increase property tax rates for corporate or large-volume private-equity landlords (this will require provisions that the increases are not passed through to individual renters)
- Reduce tariffs on lumber and building supplies
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
Montanans know what officials in Washington seem to have forgotten – Social Security benefits were earned by Americans by putting in a hard days’ work and paying into the fund for decades. Social Security trust funds belong to the people, and not to Wall Street bankers or Washington. Because of this, it is not appropriate to invest Social Security trust funds into riskier assets such as the open stock market rather than more secure US Government Securities.
Update June 2026: Earlier this month, Social Security trustees estimated that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance fund will exhaust its reserves in late 2032, about three months earlier than forecast last year. Unfortunately, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) also suggested that if the Republican party retained control of the House, that he would then release a plan next year to address ballooning entitlement spending. There have been reports that his party is considering across-the-board retirement benefit cuts of up to 17-22% for Social Security — in addition to poorly defined Medicare cuts.
As your Representative in Congress, I will work in a bipartisan and fiscally responsible manner to protect Social Security and Medicare, and to deliver effective cost-of-living increases, without the need to raise the retirement age.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
Family farms and ranches underpin our economy, our national security, and our way of life in Montana. That way of life is under threat. With inflation, blunders in trade policy and consolidation at every level of the industry, farmers and ranchers face a perfect storm; our federal government, instead of ensuring a level playing field too often subsidizes and underwrites multi-national corporations at the expense of family farmers. The rapidly increasing input prices of seed, weed control and fertilizer – combined with low output prices for agricultural products – are often now making farming a losing endeavor.
In a recent letter sent to congressional ag leaders (February, 2026), a group of past presidents and CEOs of the American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Barley Growers Association, National Milk Producers Federation, US Grains Council, Renewable Fuels Association (and others), wrote that “The policies of this administration have caused tremendous harm to U.S. agriculture. Farmer bankruptcies have doubled, barely half of all farms will be profitable this year, and the U.S. is running a historic agriculture trade deficit.”
Without positive action, we can expect more and more farmers to go bankrupt, or simply stop producing crops (at a loss). Family farms will die. Our young people will not go into farming or agriculture. When that happens, the entire supply/balance cart can become irretrievably broken and it will take decades or an entire generation to repair.
Our family still owns and operates a small multi-generational small farm in Nebraska, and through that I am familiar with only some of the issues facing today’s farmers and ranchers. I am looking forward to spending significant time in our agricultural communities during this campaign, and to learn more about what can or should be done at the federal level to protect our farming and ranching families.
What is the root of the problem? ↗ (opens eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues at this heading)
Problem #1: Input costs are 3x higher compared to the 1990’s. But why is that? It’s simple… many Ag input suppliers have merged into corporate behemoths. This severely limits market competition for available seed, fertilizer and machinery and has limited choices to the point that farmers must either “pay the price” or give up entirely and not plant a crop at all. There are now only 4 major US seed companies; there once were over 1000 companies that serially merged over the last 4 decades. About 50 fertilizer companies have merged – now there are really only about 3 or 4. And there are really only about 2 or 3 major manufacturers of heavy machinery (tractors, combines) – so they are able to set prices, too. This overall lack of competition has inevitably raised prices; because they can, when supply is controlled by just a very few. Economics 101. These large corporations are making record profits, while family farms and ranches struggle to stay alive.
Problem #2: Output prices are also down. By a lot. Once harvested, grain prices are down. Wheat prices fell ~25% in 2023 and another ~10% in 2025, and have not since recovered. Other grains have suffered a similar fate; what were once $17 soybeans are now about $11. But why is this? It looks like prices are again set by only 4 or 5 super-large grain companies who again get to control the market price. So the farmer either accepts their set-market-price, or doesn’t sell. But what choice does he really have? Farmers have no leverage, because those companies can always go overseas to buy (often inferior) grain elsewhere at cheaper rates.
NOTE: Another example of this is currently happening in Nebraska, where Tyson Foods has abruptly closed a major meat-packing plant in Lexington which will result in beef producers having to ship their cattle farther for what may be even lower prices.
Problem #3: Tariffs. China is reducing imports for certain grain products from the US (13% tariff) and pivoting to South America (Argentina 0%; Brazil 3%) where tariffs are much lower. At the same time, we’re sending $40B to Argentina in financial support to boost their economy. We’re also adding a new 80,000 metric ton quota for Argentinian beef imports, in addition to their existing 20,000 metric ton tariff‑rate quota? It would make far more sense to work together on ways to increase profitability for Montana’s beef producers, and thereby increase our own domestic supply. I firmly believe and expect that consumers would rather buy local in-State or regional American beef as opposed to South American beef. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.
In November 2025, the administration was forced to lift most of their newly imposed, broad-based reciprocal tariffs of up to 30% on key fertilizer imports (ammonia, urea, UAN, ammonium nitrate, phosphate), providing relief to farmers. Tariffs hurt when considering that the US imports nearly 25-30% of its’ total fertilizer needs. The US has a >90% import reliance for Potash (Potassium/K), with Canada being the major supplier – the US currently maintains a 10% tariff for any potash that falls outside of the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada agreement) preference. Making things worse, since the end of the 2024, China has cut off its exports of phosphate, whereas in the year before it was the world’s second largest global exporter.
Problem #4: The US is losing international market share and this can be very difficult to restore. US wheat exports have experienced a significant long-term decline, with the U.S. share of global wheat trade falling from an average of 25% in the early 2000s to about 11% in the 2024/25 marketing year. This is also a result of US tariff policy; US whole soybean exports have fallen from 47% of world market share in 2018 to just 24% today — a 50% reduction — while Brazil has gained more than 20% market share during the same period.
Problem #5: The War in Iran has had the entirely predictable effect of intermittently blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Unfortunately, more than 70-80% of the worlds Nitrate-based fertilizers come from the middle east, and this has caused an abrupt 40+% price increase for anhydrous ammonia and other fertilizers that can be expected to persist through the next growing season.
So what can we do about it: ↗ (opens eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues at this heading)
Solution #1: Conventional bailouts do not benefit the Farmer substantially, and will not fix the underlaying problem. We need long-term solutions, while providing a safety-net in the short term in some form of farm-aid in order to prevent a further acute rise in farm/ranch bankruptcies. However, it is also recognized that most of the money received from the federal government in the form of a conventional bailout will simply pass through to those few very large corporations who control both the inputs for farming (high prices for seed, fertilizer and equipment) and the outputs (low grain prices at harvest). So essentially, those bailouts may pad the profit margin of the corporations and not the farmer – who is merely a conduit that passes most of the stipend on to large corporations and financial institutions at taxpayer expense.
Solution #2: The sale of agricultural lands or assets to foreign entities must be curtailed, and the sale to large multi-national corporate entities must be controlled. Foreign entities must not be allowed to buy our meat-processing facilities for the same reason. Stronger enforcement and higher penalties need to be legislatively added into the American Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA).
Solution #3: We must address the lack of competition for input suppliers (seed and fertilizer, in particular). This will very likely require significant anti-trust legislation and legal enforcement, and may require a physical corporate break-up to reverse prior mergers.
Solution #4: The federal government may need to set a reasonable but formal ‘price floor’ for certain agricultural products, to determine a guaranteed minimum price for which farmers can sell their product(s). This form of federal subsidy is far more likely to benefit the farmer or rancher, because it stays with the farmer and encourages him/her to be more efficient and thereby motivates performance. It does not directly benefit the corporations – they will then also be motivated to become more efficient and to motivate performance to maintain their own margins. This concept can become a slippery-slope, as prior USDA/FSA efforts have sometimes resulted in huge grain reserves like that seen in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s.
Solution #5: Congress must take back control over tariffs and trade policy. The Constitution gives Congress — not the President — the power to impose tariffs. Article I, Section 8 clearly states that lawmakers have the authority “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” For much of American history, this was a core congressional prerogative. But over the past century (especially after the economic catastrophe of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act), Congress began steadily ceding this power to the executive branch, hoping presidents would take a broader, less protectionist view.
Update: On February 11, 2026, the House voted down a rule designed to block votes on terminating Trump’s tariffs, following a Senate vote rebuking the administration’s trade actions. This allows for direct votes to revoke tariffs, including those on Canada. This is a step in the right direction. Subsequently, the US Supreme Court went even further, and declared many tarriffs to be illegal and ordered refunds to begin.
Solution #6: End the War in the Middle East. But this must be done in a manner that retains free-access and unencumbered international shipping under customary international maritime laws. Without this, the world faces a prolonged period of time wherein the price of both fertilizers and fuels will be artificially increased.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
It is not fair to cut or reduce taxes on multi-millionaires, billionaires and large multi-national corporations, while the middle-class and small businesses continue to shoulder our tax burden. According to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, over the next decade the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) will cut taxes for the richest 10 percent of Americans by more than $14,700 per year per household, and cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans by more than $50,000 per year.
Overall, the OBBB cuts taxes by $4.5 trillion over the next decade, primarily through $2.3 trillion of provisions that deliver most of their benefits to the richest 10 percent of Americans by income. Within that, the bill delivers $1 trillion in tax cuts to the top 1 percent, while at the same time cutting more than $1.1 trillion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other health programs used by more Americans who need the help.
As your representative in Congress, I will:
- Recognize that tariffs represent a tax on the American consumer and small businesses, and not on the international manufacturer
- Work with a bipartisan coalition to restore cuts in Medicaid and SNAP assistance, without delay
- Support efforts for targeted tax relief for the middle- and lower-classes, and for small business fairness
- Support bipartisan efforts to create reasonable tax rates for multi-national and large corporations
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
There were drafts of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that included language to require the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to then identify and sell up to 3 million acres of federally-owned public lands across the western states for development as housing or for community needs, or to reduce the federal debt. Fortunately, this language was removed from the OBBB prior to the bill being finalized, but this is a battle that will need to be continued in earnest as it is likely to come up again.
Selling off public lands in Montana won’t solve the housing crisis, but it will certainly impede public access for recreational or hunting purposes, and severely limit grazing or leases often granted to Montana’s ranchers. It also makes very little sense for the government to sell off potential mineral rights (or explorable energy assets) associated with these large tracts of public lands.
The final version of the OBBB did include provisions that will cost states (including Montana) and U.S. taxpayers billions by rolling back the royalty rate on federal oil and gas leases from 16.67% to 12.5%; under current law, income from oil and gas development is shared with the states in which the development takes place (for every dollar of revenue the federal government brings in from oil and gas production within Montana, the state receives about half). The entire congressional delegation for Montana voted for the final version of the OBBB that contained these provisions.
[note: Oil and Gas royalties on State lands remain unchanged at ~16.6%; these funds are directed into State trusts largely in support of public schools]
I enjoy being able to go big-game hunting in Montana, and am very proud to share that my family ONLY hunts on public lands — we do not hunt on private lands, and we have never hired a professional guide. Instead, we annually choose to hunt in the Lewis and Clark National Forest, under a special extended-camp permit issued by the Forestry Service. Sometimes we get animals and sometimes we do not — but that’s the fun part of the hunt!
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
Our country is literally a nation of immigrants, and we indeed should take pride in that fact. Immigrants should be welcomed but must enter the United States legally, and this process absolutely must be actively managed. Many agricultural sectors are dependent upon migrating workers to harvest their crops – this needs to be supported.
The concept of “open borders” is not a good thing; the very high numbers of illegal immigrants in the U.S. place a significant economic burden upon our citizenry (think healthcare dollars for emergency care, consumption of resources and effects on housing).
It is entirely reasonable to remove illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes or violence against others. At the same time, I am worried that ICE is being overly aggressive or physical in their roundup of both legal and illegal immigrants — and this is a matter of training and (unprofessional?) leadership. If a person or family is here legally, they should not be anxious about being tossed into a detention center simply because they came from somewhere else.
I have a hard time thinking about deportation for Dreamers – those young adults who were brought into the U.S. by their parents when very young; they know no other life nor country. I do not think it is fair to force that young adult to deport to another country for which they feel no bond and may not even remember. Recent polls consistently show that a majority of Americans agree and believe that Dreamers should be allowed a pathway to legal status or citizenship.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues
As a Veteran myself, nothing makes me feel worse than seeing other Veterans on street corners, either homeless or begging for food money. Much has been said about lacking mental health care options in general, and this is particularly true for our Veterans. As a retired length of service military physician, I am aware of both the successes and failures of the VA Healthcare System, and will be in a position to provide support and guidance.
If elected as your Representative, I will champion an effort to build temporary housing adjacent to existing VA facilities to shelter our displaced Veterans for up to 6 to 12 months, during which an emphasis on mental and physical healthcare can be effectively supported. This may take the form of dormitories or barracks-style living, with an employed social worker assigned to each facility to provide additional assistance with job-training, available VA or federal benefits, and to help arrange for longer-term and independent housing.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · eisenhauerforcongress.com/issues