Tim Walz, currently serving as Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate, has faced scrutiny regarding the accuracy of descriptions surrounding his military service. An ABC News review of past interviews, statements, and public records reveals instances where the portrayal of Walz’s 24-year tenure in the Army National Guard has been questioned, drawing criticism, particularly from Republican circles and his political opponents. While there’s no evidence to suggest “stolen valor,” a serious accusation leveled by Senator J.D. Vance, these discrepancies have contributed to a complex narrative around Tim Walz Military Service record.
One notable instance occurred during a 2016 CSPAN panel discussion on troop levels. The host introduced Walz, then a U.S. Representative, with an overview of his military background that contained inaccuracies. She stated, “Enlisted in the Army National Guard at 17 and retired 24 years later as Command Sergeant Major, and served with his battalion in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.” Walz, present on the panel, nodded in agreement. However, military records and Walz’s own admissions indicate that while he did serve in Operation Enduring Freedom, his deployment was to Italy, not Afghanistan.
This CSPAN incident is representative of a broader pattern. Since his retirement from the National Guard in 2005 and subsequent entry into political life, questions have arisen about how Tim Walz and others have characterized his military service. These instances of mischaracterization, or failure to correct inaccurate descriptions, have led to accusations, including the serious charge of “stolen valor” by Senator Vance. “Stolen valor,” legally punishable under federal law, refers to falsely claiming military decorations or achievements.
Despite these criticisms, Walz has vehemently defended his military service. At a recent campaign rally, he declared he is “damn proud” of his record. “These guys have — are even attacking me or my record of service,” Walz stated, emphasizing his pride in serving his country. The Harris-Walz campaign has consistently affirmed his honorable service and commitment to veterans and military families.
However, the ABC News investigation, encompassing hours of footage and years of records, reveals a more nuanced picture. While not indicating criminal “stolen valor,” the review highlights instances where journalists, fellow National Guard members, and even voters were presented with an imprecise understanding of Tim Walz military service. These inaccuracies, sometimes uncorrected, have fueled criticisms extending back years. Key points of contention include Walz’s non-denial of serving in Afghanistan during the CSPAN interview, repeated self-identification as a “retired command sergeant major” despite not officially retiring with that title, and a 2018 statement about carrying “weapons of war in war,” which his campaign later clarified as a misspoken phrase.
During that same 2016 CSPAN interview, Walz did mention later in the segment that his “guard unit backfilled to Europe,” and his role involved “making sure the troops and their families were taken care of.” This detail, however, was often overshadowed by the initial, inaccurate introduction. The incident underscores how the descriptions of Walz’s military service, often complex and nuanced, have sometimes lacked clarity for public consumption.
The Harris-Walz campaign, in a statement to ABC News, emphasized Walz’s advocacy for military personnel throughout his career: “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 — and as Vice President of the United States he will continue to be a relentless champion for our veterans and military families.”
Diverging Opinions Among Fellow Service Members
The controversy surrounding Tim Walz military service has elicited varied reactions from those who served alongside him or within the same National Guard community. Thomas Behrends, who succeeded Walz as command sergeant major of his battalion in 2005, has emerged as a prominent critic. Behrends has publicly accused Walz of improperly using the “retired command sergeant major” title and criticized his decision to retire before his battalion’s deployment to Iraq.
In an interview with ABC News, Behrends expressed his disappointment: “At the point when he quit, the balloon was deflated and all the soldiers out here, basically it was like one of their main senior leaders had died. They couldn’t believe it.”
Walz has stated that his 2005 retirement was motivated by his decision to run for Congress. Records indicate that the 1st Battalion of the 125th Field Artillery received an alert order for deployment on July 14, 2005, two months after Walz’s retirement. There is no evidence suggesting Walz had formal notification of deployment prior to his retirement decision.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz at a campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, August 10, 2024. The discussion around Tim Walz military service has become a point of political contention.
Despite the timing, Walz seemed aware of a potential deployment. Shortly after announcing his congressional candidacy in March 2005, he released a statement acknowledging his unit’s “possible partial mobilization.” He stated his responsibility to prepare his battalion for potential deployment to Iraq and his willingness to serve if called upon.
“On Thursday, March 17 the National Guard Public Affairs Office announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard,” Walz wrote on his campaign website in 2005, according to archived versions. “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 continued. “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.”
Walz further indicated his intention to continue his congressional campaign even if deployed, highlighting the support of his wife and team. He ultimately won his congressional race in November 2005, shortly after his unit was mobilized.
In contrast to Behrends’ criticism, Allan Bonnifield, who served with Walz in the late 1990s until his retirement in 2005, defends Walz. Bonnifield recalls Walz’s careful deliberation regarding retirement, describing it as a “weighed real heavy on him” decision. Minnesota National Guard records confirm Walz remained in service for nearly three years after becoming eligible for retirement in August 2002.
Bonnifield recounted a private conversation with Walz where Walz expressed his dilemma: “I want to run for Congress, but I think we’re going to be deployed — but where do I do better for the soldiers in Minnesota?” Bonnifield stated that at the time of Walz’s retirement, the alert order for deployment had not yet been issued, although he acknowledged a general anticipation of deployment. He characterized the criticism of Walz as “way overblown,” emphasizing Walz’s 24 years of “great years” of service.
The Rank of Command Sergeant Major and Its Implications
A central point of contention revolves around Walz’s rank of Command Sergeant Major. He assumed this leadership position in 2004 and was officially appointed in April 2005, shortly before his retirement. However, he did not serve in the role long enough to retain the title in retirement, according to National Guard regulations.
Despite this, Walz consistently referred to himself as a “retired command sergeant major” for several years. In 2016, Thomas Behrends sent a private letter to Walz acknowledging his service but urging him to cease using the title, arguing that Walz “didn’t earn” the right to use it in retirement.
“It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major,” Behrends wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by ABC News. “It’s quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven’t been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears.”
John Kolb, a former battalion commander of Walz’s National Guard unit, also publicly criticized Walz’s use of the title. In a Facebook post, Kolb asserted that Walz “did not earn the rank or successfully complete any assignment as an E9,” the military pay grade associated with Command Sergeant Major. Kolb stated that Walz’s continued use of the title was “an affront to the Noncommissioned Officer Corps.” When contacted by ABC News, Kolb affirmed that his statement “speaks for itself.”
The Harris-Walz campaign website initially described Walz as a “retired Command Sergeant Major in the Army National Guard,” according to archived versions. This wording was later revised to “served as a Command Sergeant Major,” reflecting a more accurate description of his rank in relation to his retirement status.
“Artful Omission” and Perceptions of Combat Service
The Harris-Walz campaign has acknowledged past “discrepancies” in how Walz’s military service has been described. They stated that Walz “misspoke” in a 2018 video clip when he referenced “weapons of war that I carried in war,” arguing against weapons of war on city streets. The campaign clarified that during his 24 years of service, Walz indeed “carried, fired and trained others to use weapons of war innumerable times.”
Furthermore, Walz’s 2005 congressional campaign website described him as “Command Sergeant Major Walz,” who retired after serving “overseas with his battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.” While factually correct, the website omitted the detail that his deployment was to Italy, not to combat zones like Afghanistan or Iraq.
The 2005 website also featured articles with headlines like “After Hackett’s Close Call, Iraq War Veterans Are in Demand” and “Other Iraq War Veterans Running,” potentially creating an association with combat service in the minds of readers, even if unintentional. Similarly, his 2018 gubernatorial campaign website stated Walz “joined his battalion overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom,” again omitting the specific location of Italy.
Despite Walz’s repeated statements that he never claimed combat service, criticisms have surfaced regarding how his service was presented. A 2006 letter to the Winona Daily News accused Walz of “misleading us about his military service” through “artful omission,” leaving the impression of combat zone service. Another letter to the Albert Lea Tribune pointed to website pictures and article links that contributed to a perception of combat experience, despite Walz not being stationed in the Middle East.
In response to Vance’s accusations and broader criticisms, the Harris-Walz campaign emphasized that “Governor Walz would never insult or undermine any American’s service to this country.” They reiterated that it is “the American way” to respect military service, regardless of specific roles or locations of deployment. The ongoing discussion surrounding Tim Walz military service record highlights the complexities of public perception and the fine lines between factual accuracy, nuanced descriptions, and potential misinterpretations in political discourse.
