The dubious GOP attacks on Tim Walz’s military record, briefly explained

In a bid to undercut Vice President Kamala Harris’s newly announced running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Republicans are mounting attacks on his military record. The charges, which a closer look suggests are misleading or exaggerated, are a notable escalation against the Democratic ticket by the Trump campaign. The attacks began in earnest on August […]

In a bid to undercut Vice President Kamala Harris’s newly announced running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Republicans are mounting attacks on his military record. The charges, which a closer look suggests are misleading or exaggerated, are a notable escalation against the Democratic ticket by the Trump campaign.

The attacks began in earnest on August 7, when Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, President Donald Trump’s running mate, sought to tout his own military experience compared to Walz’s. Prior to running for Congress, Walz served for 24 years in the Army National Guard, while Vance served for four years in the Marine Corps. Neither has seen combat. 

“When the United States Marine Corps, when the United States of America, asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it. I did what they asked me to do, and I did it honorably and I’m very proud of that service,” Vance said. “When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him.” 

But Vance’s sweeping statement contains some key omissions. For instance, Walz retired in 2005, two months before his unit received formal notice it would be sent to Iraq. Another Republican attack on Walz’s service — that he misrepresented himself as a retired command sergeant major — is also more complicated: While he held that rank at one point, his rank was changed after retirement because he did not complete the required coursework. 

Yet another claim by Republicans is that Walz misrepresented his service by implying in a past statement that he once served in a combat zone. In that case, the language he used appears to have been imprecise. 

There is precedent for these types of attacks: Republicans appear to be resorting to the same “swift-boating” tactics that they once levied against former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. A reference to the small speedboats used in the Vietnam War where Kerry served, the campaign sought to impugn his character by casting doubt on his account of military service in Vietnam. 

Notably, the architect of that campaign against Kerry was Chris LaCivita — now a prominent staffer on former President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. 

Walz has faced questions about his military service before, including when he ran for Minnesota governor in 2018. And in that instance — and this one — he’s had several veterans defend him as well. Joseph Eustice, a 32-year veteran of the National Guard, told the Minnesota Star Tribune in 2022, “He was a great soldier. When he chose to leave, he had every right to leave.”

The Harris campaign for its part has responded by stressing Walz’s tenure and policy record. “After 24 years of military service, Governor Walz retired in 2005 and ran for Congress, where he was a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform,” the Harris campaign told Vox in a statement. The campaign also pointed to Walz’s time as a ranking member on the House Veteran Affairs Committee and his support for funding and mental health resources for the military. 

The claims, and the information we know, briefly explained 

The claims that Republicans have made about Walz focus on three issues: his decision to retire from the Army National Guard in 2005, his rank upon retirement, and a comment he made about carrying weapons “in war.” Here’s what we know about each of them. 

Claim 1: Walz retired from the Army National Guard to avoid serving in Iraq.

What we know: Notably, Walz retired in May 2005, two months prior to his unit receiving an official deployment order to Iraq. He stated in 2009 that his reasons for retiring were to pursue a run for the House of Representatives, which he won the following year, and to avoid conflicts under the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from engaging in certain political activities. 

Walz filed for his run for office before the National Guard had notified his unit of the possibility of a deployment to Iraq. It’s unclear if, at the time, he already knew that a deployment could be a possibility. 

Below is a more detailed timeline of how this all unfolded. 

February 10, 2005: Walz files paperwork with the Federal Election Commission declaring his candidacy for the House seat in Minnesota’s First Congressional District. 

March 17, 2005: The National Guard informs members of the possibility of deployment to Iraq within the next two years. The public affairs office notes that 2,000 members could be sent from the Minnesota National Guard, which could include part of, or the entirety of, Walz’s battalion. 

March 20, 2005: Walz issues a statement responding to the National Guard notice, saying he intends to continue to serve, and to continue his run for Congress. 

“I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on specifics of the deployment,” he said. “As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq.” 

May 16, 2005: Walz retires from the National Guard, according to a comment the Minnesota Army National Guard provided CBS News. 

July 14, 2005: Walz’s battalion receives an alert order for mobilization to Iraq. 

March 2006: Walz’s unit is deployed to Iraq. 

Claim 2: The Harris-Walz campaign misrepresented his title by stating that he’s a “retired Command Sergeant Major.”

On the Harris campaign website and a Minnesota government website, Walz had been listed as a “retired Command Sergeant Major,” according to CBS News. 

Republicans have argued that this is an inaccurate description of his title. That phrase has now been changed on the Harris campaign website to note that this title was the highest rank he earned. 

What we know: Walz did, in fact, attain the position of Command Sergeant Major. However, after he retired, his title was changed to Master Sergeant, because he did not finish the coursework required to retire under the promoted title. 

As a result, it’s accurate to say that he was once a Command Sergeant Major, but not that he was a “retired Command Sergeant Major.” 

Claim 3: Walz misrepresented his involvement in combat in a speech about gun control. 

“We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at,” Walz said in remarks about an assault weapons ban in 2018. 

Vance argues that Walz’s statements imply that he was in combat when he wasn’t. 

What we know: Walz was deployed as part of the National Guard to Vicenza, Italy, in August 2003 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom but was not in a combat zone. 

The phrasing of the statement in his gun control remarks, suggesting that he carried the weapons “in war,” was imprecise. While technically correct given the operation he was part of, it appears to suggest an experience he didn’t have. Walz has openly acknowledged in other interviews that he hadn’t seen combat while deployed. 

The Harris campaign has stressed Walz’s training with firearms in response. “In his 24 years of service, the Governor carried, fired and trained others to use weapons of war innumerable times,” the Harris campaign told Vox in a statement. “Governor Walz would never insult or undermine any American’s service to this country — in fact, he thanks Senator Vance for putting his life on the line for our country. It’s the American way.”