Has Tim Walz Misrepresented His Military Service?

In the days leading up to the Oct. 1, 2024, vice presidential debate between Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. JD Vance, some Republicans placed renewed focus on a series of old attacks about Walz's service in the National Guard. Largely, these attacks focus on three allegations:

• He "abandoned" his National Guard unit right before he would have been deployed to Iraq.

• He has lied about serving "in war."

• He has lied about the rank at which he retired.

Walz has faced these allegations from the same small group of local politicians and former Minnesota National Guardsmen in virtually every election he has participated in since his first campaign for Congress in 2006. In 2018, when he was running for governor of Minnesota, two former members of Walz's unit wrote an open letter that went viral then, and which resurfaced in 2024:

When the nation called, he quit. He failed to complete the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. He failed to serve for two years following completion of the academy, which he dropped out of. He failed to serve two years after the conditional promotion to Command Sergeant Major. He failed to fulfill the full six years of the enlistment he signed on September 18th, 2001. He failed his country. He failed his state. He failed the Minnesota Army National Guard, the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion, and his fellow Soldiers. And he failed to lead by example. Shameful.

Background

Walz served in the Army National Guard for 24 years, joining the Nebraska Guard at age 17. He underwent basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia, that year, in 1981. He returned for his senior year of high school while drilling with his unit. Service in the National Guard involves an initial period of training, then a commitment of one weekend a month and two weeks a year of exercises and training.

Walz became an artillery specialist and helped train soldiers on the use of field artillery weapons. He met his wife and moved with her to Minnesota in 1996, continuing his teaching and military careers in parallel. With that move, he transferred to a National Guard outfit based near his new job — 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery Unit, or the 1-125th FA. He rose through the ranks, as he described in a 2009 Library of Congress interview:

I taught sixth-grade history for a while teaching in Nebraska. That's where I met my wife, and she moved me back to Minnesota … . I said as far as guard units, you're able to transfer to ones. And they found me one near my hometown in Mankato, Minnesota, where I was moving with my wife that was a field artillery unit in St. James, Minnesota.

So I joined the 1st [Battalion] of the 125th Field Artillery, which was part of the 34th Division, the Red Bulls, and became part of that division artillery and then moved through the ranks, everything from gunnery sergeant, chief of the firing battery, a first sergeant and then eventually being the sergeant major for the battalion.

Domestically, the battalion was involved in several natural-disaster responses: tornado cleanups, flooding disasters, and Yellowstone wildfires. Though Walz's initial commitment to the Guard ended in 2001, he re-enlisted following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. After Sept. 11, the 1-125th participated in overseas deployments, though not in combat roles.

Walz and his unit provided "force protection" at Air Force bases in Italy, demobilizing in early 2004. Upon his return from that deployment, Walz was promoted to command sergeant major, making him the most senior enlisted member of the 1-125th.

In early 2005, Walz announced his run for U.S. Congress. When he began his campaign, he was enlisted and considered the possibility of campaigning while on active duty or facing deployment, but later decided to retire to focus on the run. At the time, he was 41 and had a 4-year-old daughter.

Walz 'Abandoned' His Unit?

The allegation that Walz "abandoned" his unit originated, in large part, from the National Guardsman who went on to take Walz's place as command sergeant major in the 1-125th and who co-wrote the aforementioned open letter. Centrally, this line of attack alleges that Walz's congressional run allowed him to avoid combat.

Walz announced his run for Congress in February 2005, before the March 17, 2005, announcement that the 1-125th would potentially be deployed to Iraq. While Walz did announce his intention to run before that announcement, it is certainly possible he knew his unit was likely to see action in Iraq based on increased mobilization of National Guard troops for the War on Terror and due to his senior rank.

At the time of the mobilization announcement, Walz said he was still considering remaining enlisted during his campaign. Ultimately, he decided to retire. Though it is unclear when he filed his decision to retire, May 17, 2005, was his last day with the Guard. His unit deployed in March 2006.

The suggestion that a possible future combat deployment played a role in his decision to retire is speculative, and pushed in large part by that small but vocal group of former members of the 1-125th. Others who served with Walz disagree, saying he had every right to retire when he did. As the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported, for example:

Joseph Eustice, a 32-year veteran of the guard who led the same battalion as Walz, said the governor fulfilled his duty. 

"He was a great soldier," Eustice said. "When he chose to leave, he had every right to leave." 

Eustice said claims to the contrary are ill-informed and possibly sour grapes by a soldier who was passed over for the promotion to command sergeant major that went to Walz. 

…

Like Walz, Eustice said that he also left in the middle of a six-year re-enrollment because members are free to leave at any time after their initial six-year stint. 

"If you choose to re-up, you can walk in any day and be done," Eustice said.

Other former members of the unit who remember Walz have also spoken highly of him, as reported by Minnesota Public Radio in 2022:

Jeff Bertrang outranked Walz in the unit and retired as a brigadier general. Now the New Ulm schools superintendent, Bertrang has a fond recollection of Sgt. Walz.

"His willingness to learn and to inspire others, he had a go-get-em' attitude," Bertrang said. "It wasn't sit back and wait to see what happens."

They spent time stationed together in the far reaches of Norway, where Guard troops trained with NATO allies, doing drills in the snow in 30-below-zero temperatures. 

Bertrang said Walz was good at putting his colleagues at ease and demonstrated an appreciation for varying viewpoints and differing backgrounds, all of which could transfer to politics.

The Minnesota National Guard, which could have blocked his retirement, had no objections to his leaving at the time he did, an official with the Guard told The Washington Post in August 2024.

Walz Lied About Serving 'in War'?

In describing his time in the military, Walz has never claimed to have served in any combat role. He makes this point explicit in nearly all published interviews on the subject. Speaking during his 2009 Library of Congress interview about his unit's deployment in a support role during Operation Enduring Freedom, for example, Walz described some of his men's disappointment at their noncombat assignment:

We were under the assumption we could fire artillery [during Operation Enduring Freedom]. That's what we had trained for. … All of us, first and foremost, were infantry and all of us did need to provide whatever was required of us. So we ended up providing part of the … base security for Air Force bases. … And I think in the beginning, many of my troops were disappointed.

Some conservative outlets, such as the Washington Free Beacon, have argued that Walz's statements about his deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom misleadingly suggest he claimed to have served in Afghanistan. Walz has never made such a claim, though, and he has always described his 2003 deployment as one that supported security operations at U.S. Air Force bases in Europe.

The closest thing to a statement made by Walz suggesting he is a combat veteran comes from a 2018 statement he made as governor of Minnesota when he advocated for tighter gun-control legislation: "We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war." The Harris campaign recently shared the statement on X and other social media platforms.

Walz's phrasing here is inaccurate, as he did not carry weapons "in war." Though he was exposed to enough percussive power from the artillery he trained on, and taught others how to use, to require ear surgery later in life, he did not handle those weapons of war in an actual war. 

On Aug. 9, 2024, a Harriz-Walz campaign spokesperson told The Washington Post that Walz "misspoke," explaining:

In making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the Governor misspoke. He did handle weapons of war and believes strongly that only military members trained to carry those deadly weapons should have access to them, unlike Donald Trump and JD Vance who prioritize the gun lobby over our children.

His language in this instance was imprecise and potentially misleading, but it requires a literal reading of a rhetorical point about gun violence to cast this statement as his claiming the status as combat veteran in light of his transparency on the topic elsewhere.

Walz Lied About His Rank?

The dispute about Walz's rank is, at its core, a semantic one. When Walz was promoted to command sergeant major on Sept. 17, 2004, his promotion was conditional on his completing certain training. It is not uncommon for such promotions to precede the required training. He began, but did not complete, training for this role at that time, as described by the military-focused media outlet Task and Purpose:

The course Walz failed to complete was a 750-hour course in the Army's Sergeants Major Academy, which would have included 86 hours in residence at Ft. Bliss, Texas. Completing the course is mandatory for E-9s, though completing the training after being promoted is not uncommon.

Regardless, Walz served for seven months as command sergeant major. When he decided to retire, he left without completing that training. As a result, his official retirement rank is a step lower. The demotion occurred after he left, and it was administrative, not punitive. The change primarily affects Walz's military-retirement package.

The Minnesota National Guard has regularly stated that it is appropriate for Walz to say he "served as" command sergeant major. Capt. Holly Rockow, a public affairs officer for the Minnesota National Guard, told Minnesota Public Radio in 2018 that it "is legitimate for Walz to say he served as a command sergeant major."

Walz's opponents take umbrage with Walz saying he is a retired command sergeant major due to this demotion. On Aug. 8, 2024, the Harris campaign, which had originally described Walz as a "retired command sergeant major" on its website, changed the language to more accurately state that he served at the rank of command sergeant major.

The Bottom Line

A minority of veterans from the 1-125th, as well as political activists, begrudge Walz for retiring in 2005 before a long deployment in Iraq, and for using the phrase "retired as" a command sergeant major. The National Guard accepted his retirement without issue at the time and has stated that he did "serve as" a command sergeant major. Despite characterizations to the contrary, Walz has never explicitly claimed to have served in combat.

Walz served honorably in the National Guard for 24 years, and served (but did not retire) at the highest rank possible for an enlisted man. As a soldier he participated in disaster-relief deployments domestically and provided security assistance at European U.S. Air Force bases during Operation Enduring Freedom.